Intellectual Property Archives - Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

Comments on the Srikrishna Committee Report and the Draft Data Protection Bill 2018 – I

[Ed Note : The following series of posts contain comments on the Srikrishna Committee Report and the Draft Data Protection Bill, 2018 made and compiled by students from NALSAR University of Law -Ankush Rai, Ashwin Murthy, Arvind Pennathur, Namratha Murugesan, Priyamvadha Shivaji, Shweta Rao, Sriram Kashyap, Vishal Rakhecha and Tanvi Apte. The comments have been uploaded on the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) website.

The present post deals with comments made in relation to four issues that arise in relation to the Report and Draft Bill – a) vagueness, b) government interference, c) the data protection authority and d) surveillance.

TechLaw Symposium at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad – Press Note

[Ed Note : The following press note has been authored by Shweta Rao and Arvind Pennathur from NALSAR University of Law. Do watch this space for more details on the symposium!}

On the 9^th of September NALSAR University of Law’s Tech Law Forum conducted its first ever symposium with packed panels discussing a variety of issues under the broad theme of the Right to Privacy. This symposium took place against the backdrop of the recent draft Data Protection Bill and Report released by the Srikrishna Committee.

A Note On Monsanto vs. Nuziveedu

In the recent judgement in the High Court of Delhi in Monsanto Technology LLC and Ors. v. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited and Ors, the Delhi High Court has single-handedly devastated the Biotechnology (Bt.) industry in India. Its judgement will have far-reaching consequences on multiple sectors such as genetic modification and biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and the agriculture industry.

Brief Facts and Monsanto’s Patent Claims

Through a Government notice from the Department of Agriculture, the trait fees, or the fees charged for seeds with genetic coding for a specific characteristic (such as pest resistance, or higher yield), were revised for certain seeds including Bollgard and Bollgard II of Monsanto, a Fortune 500 global conglomerate.

Huawei v ZTE: SEPs, Injunctions and the Points of Interface between the ECJ Case and Indian Jurisprudence: Part I

[Ed Note: This post is the first part of a two part series authored by Vaibhav Laddha, a student of NALSAR University of Law.]

Technology product markets today are inherently international. Products designed in Germany may be manufactured in Korea or China and sold in India. This cross-cutting global nature of technological products has created a need for standardisation to ensure technical interoperability. Some standards which ensure this are WiFi (wireless networking), MP3 (digital content encoding), 4G (wireless telecommunications), etc. These standards reduce communication costs and increase efficiency. For this reason, various standard setting organisations (SSOs) have been formed who primarily facilitate coordination between different stakeholders in a market by setting standards.

Huawei v ZTE: SEPs, Injunctions and the Points of Interface between the ECJ Case and Indian Jurisprudence : Part II

[Ed Note: This post is the second part of a two part series authored by Vaibhav Laddha, a student of NALSAR University of Law. The first part can be found here.]

The Indian telecommunications market is one of the largest in the world, and therefore becomes an important market for the key participants in the telecommunications industry. Indian jurisprudence on FRAND practices for SEPs is underdeveloped at this stage, with a handful of decisions by the Delhi High Court and the Competition Commission of India. The rules that govern SEP have not been clearly defined, and the positions adopted by the Delhi High Court and the Competition Commission of India have differed greatly.