Making biofules at your backyard @ $1 per gallon

E-fuel 100 Microfueler developed by Floyd Butterfield and Thomas Quinn, offers the flexibility to generate biofuel (Ethanol @ $1/gallon) at your backyard. This system is compact like a washing machine and operates on sugar content and yeast. Read more on NYT coverage

Perhaps, innovative part of the system is an advance membrane distiller, which separates water from ethanol at lower heat and fewer steps than other ethanol systems

Critics flaunted the claims and said that sugar costs 20-cents per pound, and system requires 10 to 14 pounds to make a gallon of ethanol, hence it is not viable to produce ethanol But Butterfield and his Silicon Valley finance whiz/business partner Thomas J. Quinn swears you can buy “inedible sugar” from South of the Border for 2 to 3 cents per pound.

India’s Konkan Railways filed patent in 124 countries for its safety innovation

Anti-collision Device (ACD) branded as “Raksha Kavach” developed by Konkan Railways has been successfully granted patents by China, Russia, Singapore and South Africa. Konkan Railways has filed patent application in 124 countries.

Raksha Kavach is a self-acting device that warns the train driver of any impending accident-like situation within a 3-km range.The instrument will cost approximately Rs 5 lakh (500,000) for installation in trains and Rs 10 lakh (INR 1000,000) in planes. It has already applied for international patent rights for the product in 124 countries.

Sky Bus, an alternative of metro railways for urban transport, is also innovative solution.

Visit for all patents from Konkan Railways.

My experience with Konkan railways was superb particularly in term of cusine.

Types of Patent Searches

A nice brief compilation by Vinod Kumar Singh of Competitive and Technical Intelligence Toolbox (CTIB)

Search Type	Purpose	Coverage	Comments
State-of-the-Art	Identify general and background art for a particular technology	Patents and non-patent literature. Not exhaustive.	Gives a broad picture to help guide research
Patentability, Novelty	Identify art which may affect the patentability of an invention	Patents and non-patent literature. Multiple data sources.	Narrower in scope than State-of-Art. Recommended before writing patent application
Invalidity, Opposition	Identify prior art which may impact the claims of a specific patent	Patents and non-patent literature. Employ creative strategies to elucidate previously undiscovered art before filing date of patent.	Helps remove blocking patents by anticipating claims of an invention. Establishes solidity of patent portfolio, e.g. for licensing or company acquisition
Infringement, Freedom-to-Operate, Right-to-Use, Domination	Identify patents or applications which may cover a proposed product or process	Covers patents only and which are still in force. Include both narrow and broad concepts	Often country specific. Analysis of claims.
Patent Watch	Monitor new patent activity or status changes to existing patents	Patents only	Updates at regular intervals or rapid-alerting when activity occurs
Technology Update	Monitor latest technology developments by subject	Patents and/or non-patent literature	Regular updates, weekly, monthly or other chosen frequency
Non-Patent Literature Reference Query; Biomedical Information	Research into specific questions asked by biomedical staff regarding safety, clinical, regulatory areas, or by Research Scientists, etc.	Biomedical databases or other databases as appropriate	A quick turnaround on these types of searches can normally be accommodated
Inventor, Author or Assignee	Identify references to a particular inventor, author, assignee or affiliate	Patents and/or non-patent literature	A quick turnaround on these types of searches can normally be accommodated
Legal Status	Determine whether a patent is in force, abandoned, etc.	Specialist legal status online databases (e.g. ‘INPADOC’) and/or patent office registers	A quick turnaround on these types of searches can normally be accommodated
Patent Family	Identify the first or ‘basic’ patent and subsequent ones claiming the same priority	Patent databases such as ‘World Patents Index’, ‘INPADOC’ and ‘Chemical Abstracts’	A quick turnaround on these types of searches can normally be accommodated
Cited or Citing References	Identify references	Patent databases, e.g. ‘Derwent Patents Citation Index’ and non-patent literature, e.g. Science Citation Index	An alternative method useful in identifying additional state-of-the-art or invalidating prior art
Collections	‘Collect’ prior art in a particular area of technology	Patents only. Often conducted within selected patent classifications	Useful for directing research or identifying gaps for patenting strategies
Patent Map	Show patent landscape to uncover trends, gaps or overlap in patent coverage and links between patents	Patents only	Useful for directing research or identifying gaps for patenting strategies
Scientific Business	Identify financial, organizational, statistical, commercial and other information for technology based organizations	Business, news and other sources	Supply of raw data and/or overall analysis

full window

full window

Bangalore Municipal Corporation Innovates cost effective urban road solutions

Bangalore City Municipal Corporation (BCC) is enthusiatic for its technical innovation in road construction technology, specifically used for development of underpass, surface pass and overpass. It is planning to secure patent protection for the same. It is going to file the patent for the Concrete Elements as product and erection of such structure as installation process.

The technical innovation also claims to reduce the cost of such constructions from INR 200 Mn to mere INR 10 Mn. Other municipal authorities from Chennai, Chandigarh, Chhattisgarh and Mumbai have shown their interest in the promising technology.

BCC sees this as an opportunity to overtake Banglore Development Authority in Infrastructure development.

Indian Motorbike Major fights over Engine Patent

Yet to be launch motorbike sparked patent row among the two major Indian players. Bajaj auto’s “XCD” pronounced as Ex-cee-d’ has locked horns with another TVS’s “’s “Flame” on the patent of engine technology. Both the bikes would be competing each other other in same segment i.e. 125 cc engine bike market.

Bajaj auto’s accused TVS’s ” for infringing its patented Digital Twin Spark Swirl Injection “DTS-Si” technology for motorbike engines. Bajaj auto’s’s in house technology has already been adopted in some of its successful models Palsar, Avenger and Platina.

TVS’s ” veraciously denied the charges by stating that its technology “CCVTI” is completely different, from Bajaj auto’s. CCVTI engine has three valves unlike the Bajaj auto’s DTS-Si. It also stated that use of “twin spark” in four-stroke motorbike engine was first patented by Japanese auto major HONDA. It has developed this technology in collaboration with Austrian firm AVL, holding patent on use of three valves in internal combustion motorbike engines.

TVS’s ” & Bajaj auto’s has developed in-house R&D facilities to compete domestic and global motorbike players, in one of the fastest growing bike market, INDIA.

Bajaj auto’s had successfully refrained chinese bike maker to sell copy-cat verison of its bikes in sri-lanka and African countries.

Bajaj auto’s is waiting for launch of TVS’s “’s FLAME to initiate legal action, while TVS’s ” threaten to file INR 25 Bn defamation suit.

Novartis’s challenge on validity of Indian patent laws was put down by Indian High Court

Swiss pharma giant, Novartis, faced another blow in India, when Chennai High Court rejected its writ petition challenging the validity of Indian Patent Laws.

Novartis had sought to declare Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents Act as substituted by Patents (Amendment) Act (2005) as being “unconstitutional as it is vague, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the constitution (right to equality).”  The section denies patent protection to the discovery of new form of known substance which does not result in enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance.

Novartis also rasied concerns over the discretion of patent authorities to define and determine the “enhancement of efficacy”. The Bench rejected the concerns by saying that the amended section cannot be invalidated solely on ground that there was a mere possibility of misuse of power.

Since Novartis’s 1993 patent effectively disclosed both the free base, imatinib, and the acid-addition salt, imatinib mesylate and the crystalline forms of imatinib mesylate. The crystalline forms of imatinib mesylate claimed in the application in question does not differ significantly in properties with respect to efficacy. In fact, with respect to efficacy, the current specification of Novartis itself admits that wherever β-crystals are used the imatinib free base or other salts can be used. The various forms of imatinib mesylate can, therefore, very well be considered the “same substance” under section 3(d) of the Patents Act.   view of IP practitioner Swarup Kumar

Novartis unlikely to challenge High court ruling in Indian Supreme Court. Novartis faced first setback  in January last year, when the Indian Patent Office rejected a patent application of its leukaemia drug Gleevec. It had filed appeal against the patent office decision to Intellectual Property Appellate Board and a writ petition in Chennai High Court.

Defending a patent infringement in court - take recourse of Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents

Doctrine of Equivalents was set forth by US Supreme Court in 1950 to extent the protection of patent rights to a good patent holders beyond the literal meaning of the claims i.e. literal infringement. US Supreme Court also established Function-Way-Result test with the objective to ensure the fundamental fairness to it to all.

Reverse of the doctrine is also hold good, i.e. if the claim elements did not Function is the same Way to accomplish the same Result then there would not be actual infringement under the doctrine.

Till date, neither US Supreme Court nor Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal had reversed a finding of non-infringement based on reverse doctrine of equivalence.

read more from ipfrontlines authored by Jay Sandvos

Indian firms and brazilian AIDS patients to be benefit from compulsory licensing

The Brazilian government’s decision to override the patent rights of Merck’s HIV/AIDS drug Stocrin (efavirenz) and buy reverse engineered generic versions of the drug at low cost has come as a boon for Indian pharmaceutical companies manufacturing generic versions of efavirenz such as Cipla, Ranbaxy, Aurobindo Pharma and Strides Arcolab.

On Friday, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva announced invoking the compulsory licensing provision for pharmaceuticals under the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) agreement on intellectual property - the TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) - to buy copycat versions of efavirenz from laboratories certified by the World Health Organisation.

With over 200,000 registered cases, Brazil has the most AIDS patients in Latin America. Of them, only 75,000 patients are currently treated with efavirenz.

Welcoming the Brazilian government’s move, Amar Lulla, joint managing director of Cipla, said it was heartening to note that Brazil has invoked the compulsory licensing provision to treat its HIV/AIDS patients with affordable generic drugs.

“The compulsory licensing provision of the TRIPS help countries to protect the rights of its citizens. We welcome the Brazilian move,” he said.

Lulla confirmed that the Brazilian government was negotiating with Cipla for the supply of these medicines.

Is infringment of patent in abroad liable to claim damages in the country…. ?

This is the question .. going to be decided by US SC in july 2007, while hearing Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 05-1056 case.

In a long-running case between Microsoft and AT&T, AT&T had been able to secure favorable judgments from lower federal courts.

In this case, Microsoft has accepted the infringement of an AT&T patent in US but disputed the infringement of the patent in overseas markets.

The patent is related to technology that converts speech into computer code, so the speech can be transmitted electronically. It accused Microsoft Corp. of infringing the patent by including similar capabilities in its Windows software.

AT&T has cited the provision of US patent law, which restricts the export or infringed products from country. It says by incorporating the infringed technology in windows and selling it overseas Microsoft has violated the said provision and hence liable for the damages.

Microsoft, has pleaded that it is exporting only the “master copy” of the software and said feature has been added by computer  manufacturers in the foreign markets.

AT&T  protested the idea of “master version” of the software and argued that Microsoft has collected the royalty on the infringing software sold in the overseas markets, hence it is liable for the damages for the infringement in  overseas markets.

US Supreme Court is expected to deliver its judgment on the issues in july 2007.

The secret to successful use of technology in a corporate setting

The secret to successful use of technology in a corporate setting

By Ernest Svenson on Legal Tech

It’s sad how much money is wasted on technology. If you need transportation and you buy a car then you aren’t wasting money. But if the car doesn’t run properly so that you don’t use it then you have a problem. Corporations buy lots of technology. Amazingly, most of that money is wasted because they don’t know how to use technology properly.

What’s the secret to using technology well in a corporate world? I don’t really care, because I gave up on the corporate world. But, if I ever went back to that world, then it would have to be a company that understands this principle.

IP Due Diligence – put simply (with the 6 T’s)

Duncan Bucknell  talks about the  ‘6T’ framework for analysing IP issues.  This article uses the same framework to show you how to simply structure an IP due diligence. 

Just to remind you, here are the 6 T’s:

1 ­- Type of IP

2 - Time (until expiry)

3 - Territories (in which IP is held/registered)

4 - Terminated (ie the status of the IP)

5 - Technical Scope of the monopoly

6 - True monopoly? (validity)

more here

Steady Flow Of Patent Application In India

An Indian Law firm Lex Orbis analyzies the trend in patent application in India.

The revival of the Indian economy and globalization of markets have thrown open new opportunities in the field of foreign investments and a strong patent regime is a key driver for foreign investment in India, particularly when other competing countries in South East Asia, including China offer better investment climate. As technological innovation is facilitated by healthy IPR protection, the onus is on the policy for correct balance between industrial development goals and protection of national interest.

The number of patent filing rate in India had tremendously grown in recent years and it has been growing 30% annually since 2002-03. The accession to PTC and the amendment of the Patent Act and Rules are the contributory factors. But the Indian Patent office infrastructure is still undergoing a change. The IT infrastructure is improving and the government realizing the advantages is planning a 1,300 crore-modernization plan. Currently India is ranked 12^th in the world in patent filing. It has been reported that the numbers of applications have increased 400 percent over the past 15 years. Nearly 800 companies submitted international applications to the WIPO in 2004, which is more than a double of what has been filed in 2000. An increased patent filing was witnessed in the year 2005-2006 due to the changes brought about in the Patent Act where the product patent was introduced for the first time in pharmaceutical sector.

Currently, the patent office expects the growth to be maintained at 30% this year also. Delhi office has recorded the largest number of application around the country and majority of the application continues to be from foreign countries and is from the chemicals and pharmaceutical segment, which account for half of the applications filed followed by Information Technology and Electronics.

WIPO Report on Worldwide Patenting

 

A report released by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on Monday, October 16, 2006, shows that the patent system is an integral part of increasing global economic activity, with the increase in patent filings closely mirroring economic growth around the world. The WIPO Patent Report 2006 shows that companies are increasingly using the intellectual property (IP) system to protect their investments in new markets. The report reveals that a total of 5.4 million patents were in force worldwide in 2004, the last year for which complete statistics are available.

The WIPO Patent Report (2006 Edition) presents an overview of worldwide patenting activity based on statistics up to the end of 2004. It provides analyses of different aspects of the patent system, cross-country comparisons and special sections on technical features of the patent system such as the Patent Cooperation Treaty and the European Patent Convention.

Patent statistics are useful indicators of inventive activity and of technology flows. Research into the use and interpretation of such statistics is an on-going activity at WIPO. In this first edition, the WIPO Patent Report includes indicators to measure patenting intensity across countries. Three indicators (population, GDP and R&D expenditure) are used to weight patent filings according to country size and economic activity.

Highlights
Growth in patent activity. Patent filings have grown at an average annual rate of 4.75% over the past ten years, to a total of nearly 1.6 million in 2004. The growth rate is comparable to the overall increase in economic activity as measured by world GDP growth. Patents granted worldwide have also increased at a similar rate, to more than 600,000 in 2004. At the end of 2004, there were more than 5.4 million patents in force worldwide.

Increasing internationalization. Patenting activity has expanded across more countries in recent years. This can be seen in the growth rate of patent filings by non-residents (7.4% average annual increase since 1995) and in the increase in patent filings in countries such as Brazil, China, India, the Republic of Korea and Mexico. That said, the use of the patent system remains highly concentrated with five patent offices (United States of America, Japan, European Patent Office, Republic of Korea and China) accounting for 75% of all patent applications and 74% of all patents granted.

Increased use of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). The WIPO-administered PCT has become a major route for international patent filing. The number of PCT international applications grew at an average annual rate of 16.8% from 1990 to 2005 and reached 135,000 in 2005. PCT national phase entries account for 47% of all non-resident patent filings

The report notes a boom in patent filings in northeast Asia over the past 20 years, most notably with the emergence of China and the Republic of Korea as major industrial economies. For several decades Japan has been the largest patent office in the world with more than 400,000 patent applications filed by residents and non-residents in 2004. In only 20 years, China has become the 4th largest patent office in the world (by number of patent applications filed) and patent filings by Chinese residents grew more than five-fold between 1995 and 2004 to reach 65,786. Today, the Republic of Korea is the 3rd largest patent office in the world and is also experiencing very high growth rates with a three-fold increase in patent filings by residents between 1994 and 2004.

EU Law Blog: Compulsory licenses of pharmaceutical patents for export

EU Law Blog: Compulsory licenses of pharmaceutical patents for export
Compulsory licenses of pharmaceutical patents for export
The Community has adopted and published a regulation - Regulation 816/2006 - on compulsory licensing of patents relating to the manufacture of pharmaceutical products for export to countries with health problems.

This regulation sets up, within the EC, the system that had been foreseen in paragraph 6 of the Decision of the General Council of the WTO of August 30th, 2003 implementing the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and public health. It enters into force at the end of June 2006.

European patents and software

European patents and software

Things are getting curioser and curioser in the long drawn out debate on whether computer software is patentable or not. The Commission had proposed back in 2000 that computer software patents could be invalidated. Then in 2002 the Commission proposed that software should be patentable (see proposal COM (2002) 92 final Also here). The the European Parliament rejected that proposal (see generally, legislative history).

Now, the Commission in response to a parliamentary question (P-1625/06 by Adam Gierek) seems to indicate that

…the draft Community patent Regulation confirms in its Article 28.1(a) that patents granted for a subject matter (such as computer programs), which is excluded from patentability pursuant to Article 52 EPC, may be invalidated in a relevant court proceeding.

So it seems like the Commission is reverting to its position in 2000 and abandon the position it took when the EP rejected the software patent proposal.