Reverent for Dr. Asima Chatterjee !!!

Dear All,

Today if you get to see the Google Doodle it shows the deep tribute to Dr. Asima Chatterjee by creating an interesting sculptured as:


Fig Source: Forbes





















Let’s find out why Dr. Asima Chatterjee is still in memory on her 100’s Birthday..

Many of us aware with Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd the first Indian Company to manufacture quality Chemicals, Drugs, Pharmaceuticals and Home Products, employing indigenous technology, skill and raw materials. It was the time when Patent and other intellectual properties were governed by Patents and Designs Act 1911 and ambiguities and deficiencies in that Act which were fully exploited by the foreign owned pharmaceutical companies called Trans National Corporations (TNCs).

Unichem for tolbutamide (Sulphonamide Derivative) had been successfully sued in Bombay High Court by  Hoechst (Now as Aventis) for a infringing it’s patent grant in 1956 which covered all methods of eliminating Sulphur from Thioureas whether desulphurisation is effected, by means of hydrogen peroxide or by the use of any other substance. (widely worded claims were granted by IPO Under Patent Act 1911)

The same patent was also sought to be used for preventing Bengal  Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Works (BCPW), an indigenous firm, manufacturing another drug, Chlorpropamide (Sulphonamide Derivative). BCPW developed a new process for manufacturing it and obtained a patent in 1956. But in 1961, BCPW received a letter from Hoechst, alleging that BCPW had infringed upon the letters patent under which pfizer had been given a license to produce it. Hoechst and pfizer on their part, filed a suit in the Calcutta High Court against BCPW.

This time the judgement went in favor of BCPW in 1968 due to following reasons:

·         Dr. Asima Chatterjee was involved in this historic legal battles because BCPW founder Late Acharya Prafulla Chandra Ray was her teacher.

·         Dr. Asima Chatterjee agreed to be the principal witness for BCPW on condition that she would not accept any fees. Late Professor Dukshaharan Chakraborty was the principal witness for Hoechst Co. Ltd.

·         For the first time in history of principle witness in scientific opinion Dr. Asima Chatterjee had crossed more than 100 questions in Chemistry for day together in the Calcutta High Court, standing in the Witness Box by opponent senior Council.

·         It was Dr. Asima Chatterjee who rescue  BCPW for had it lost the case, it would have to go into liquidation on account of the astronomical amount of libel suit sought by Hoechst Co. Ltd.

Reverent for Dr. Asima Chatterjee !!!




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Delhi High Court Emphasizes the Importance of Claim Mapping in Patent Cases

Image
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Patent-claim-map-introducing-relationships-among-neighbouring-patents_fig1_285968399 On October 9, 2024, the Delhi High Court delivered a significant ruling in the case of  Hoffmann-La Roche AG vs. Zydus Lifesciences Limited, emphasizing the critical concept of claim mapping in patent infringement cases, particularly when petitioning for interim injunctions. Key Points from the Ruling: 1. Definition of Claim Mapping: Claim mapping involves a detailed comparison between the claims outlined in a patent and the allegedly infringing product or process. This step is crucial to establish whether there is actual infringement. 2. Judicial Requirements for Injunctions: Justice Saurabh Banerjee articulated that to secure a temporary injunction, a patent holder must present evidence of not only a prima facie case and the balance of convenience but also successful claim mapping. This means the applicant must show that the infringing product is likely...
Read more

Novartis v. Natco_The abandonment of a divisional patent application does not render the parent patent unenforceable.

Image
(image credit:  livelaw.in ) Patent in suit : IN276026 (Novartis: Expiry:    20/05/2024) Molecule: Ceritinib Annual sale in India: 105,947,883 INR (As per Form 27, 2019) & 87,671 261,970,291 INR (2022-23: As per Form 27) Judgment Pronounced on : 9 April 2024. Conclusive Remark: The Delhi High Court has rejected the O39R4 application filed by the Defendant, NATCO, which sought to lift the injunction order in favor of the Plaintiff, Novartis. Interesting fact & remark of DHC : 1.      The Division application filed by Novartis was not rejected on its merits but because Novartis chose not to pursue the application. This decision does not prevent Novartis from contesting the validity of the patent challenged by the opponent. 2.      Even if the rejection of the division application were considered on its merits, the Controller's decision is not binding on the court. Upon independent analysis, the court has found...
Read more

The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023: changes in the realm of Intellectual Property laws.

Image
The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 aims to decriminalize and rationalize various offences in different legislative enactments to foster trust-based governance and improve the ease of living and doing business in India. It introduces a structured revision of fines and penalties, increasing them by 10% every three years, and modifies specific sections across multiple laws to align with updated governance expectations. The Act's implementation reinforces the governmental commitment to creating a less punitive regulatory environment while maintaining the necessary accountability. The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 decriminalizes and amends various provisions across different Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) legislations. Specifically, amendments regarding patents, trademarks, geographical indications, and copyright laws are being implemented through notifications issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry on July 26 and July 29, 2024 which wil...
Read more