2019 Volume 11 Issue 1 Pages 133-138
The Indian government amended its patent act in 2005 and introduced product patents to comply with the TRIPS Agreement. Nevertheless, due to a special provision, they refused a patent for Novartis' Gleevec and issued a compulsory license for a cancer drug by Bayer to a domestic generic drug manufacturer, thus leaving developed countries with the impression that intellectual property may not necessarily be well-protected in India. Meanwhile, the number of patent applications began to increase, as did the number of intellectual property lawsuits; however, due to the aforementioned cases, the general impression is that, often, their courts rule against foreign-affiliated companies, which tend to have many patents. In a recent paper, however, an Indian lawyer indicated that the courts do not always necessarily rule against patent holders. The aim of this study is to examine the present state of intellectual property rights infringement lawsuits in India. In India, not all of the detailed data of lawsuits are made public and thus, it cannot be known whether the number of rulings that favor patent holders is actually increasing, although it has been confirmed that the High Court of Delhi has given at least several rulings in favor of patent holders in recent years.