a. Putting unreasonable constraints on the licensee to purchase/acquire, "other products" only from suppliers designated by the licensor. These other products are even not covered by the patent. b. Putting unresonable constraints on the licensee for not using "other products" which are not supplied by suppliers designated by the licensor. These other products are not even covered by the patent. c. Putting unreasonable constraints on the licensee to not use any "other process". Basically, you are providing a license only by making the licensee agree to your conditions that you will use only a specific "other products" which are provided by your "friends" D. Providing a give-n-take kind of clause - where you require exclusive grant back, putting restriction on other party to never challenge the patent or a some kind of package deal - where you club other services/products/requirements. I hope this easy to understand now 🙂
07:58 - Before suggesting the client to apply for CL, should we not engage with the patentee to get the license; or does this qualify as an anti competitive activity
This section doesn’t override a condition in a contract that prohibits a person from selling goods other than those belonging to a specific person or company. Essentially, if a contract restricts someone from selling products not affiliated with a particular entity, this section of the Patents Act does not nullify that restriction. It does not validate a contract that would otherwise be considered invalid under different circumstances. In essence, if a contract doesn’t hold up due to reasons apart from the provisions of this section, this section does not provide validation. This section also doesn't impact specific conditions within a contract for the lease or license of a patented article. For instance, if a contract includes terms wherein the lessor or licensor retains the right to supply necessary new parts for the patented article or to handle its repair, this section doesn’t interfere with those specific clauses. Overall, these exceptions ensure that certain types of contracts or clauses within contracts are not affected or invalidated by the provisions mentioned in Section 140 - as these contracts are not patent licenses
These are general "SoP" regarding the patent/patent office. Section 140 is important as it talks about what all clauses in a license agreement are not allowed, 143 talks about no application can get published before the expiry of 18 months, 146/147 talks about the power of the controller to ask for information/evidence/documents, 156 talks about patents being enforceable against govt as well and 158/159/160 talks about the power of HC and government/parliament to make rules. Don't sweat too much over this chapter - have an overview of the provisions available as described above in the comment.
Sir in case a use case is there where a Company want to manufacture a drug for malaria as there is a severe epidemic in some regions of India....He had talks with patentee larva ltd. for licence but negotiations fail....Can thusbe a case of Section 92(3) ...medical emergency, public health crises...But here its not mentioned that Central govt. Has issued notification in official gazette on the basis of which CL can be applied...Will 90 be used here or section 84 And 87 will apply?
All concepts are reduced in a very simplified way..thank you so much !
Thank you Riya, I am yet to respond to your earlier messages. I will respond in sometime. Thanks for your patience.
Sir, can you please help us with concept of section 140 which talks about avoidance of certain restrictive conditions.
Please scroll through the community tab, I have explained the section there.
a. Putting unreasonable constraints on the licensee to purchase/acquire, "other products" only from suppliers designated by the licensor. These other products are even not covered by the patent.
b. Putting unresonable constraints on the licensee for not using "other products" which are not supplied by suppliers designated by the licensor. These other products are not even covered by the patent.
c. Putting unreasonable constraints on the licensee to not use any "other process".
Basically, you are providing a license only by making the licensee agree to your conditions that you will use only a specific "other products" which are provided by your "friends"
D. Providing a give-n-take kind of clause - where you require exclusive grant back, putting restriction on other party to never challenge the patent or a some kind of package deal - where you club other services/products/requirements.
I hope this easy to understand now 🙂
@@AbhayPorwal sir your videos and this instant reply on our doubt helped us lot🙏 thank you🙏
Sir..can u pls tell which video is for S140 ?
Anu, please scroll down the community post, you will find a post about 140. Let me know if you need assistance after that as well.
@@AbhayPorwal Sir I found that post ..thank you
07:58 - Before suggesting the client to apply for CL, should we not engage with the patentee to get the license; or does this qualify as an anti competitive activity
Prashant, engagement with the pwtenteei is a requirement before asking for CL
@@AbhayPorwal Thanks
Can you please tell what is the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 140?
This section doesn’t override a condition in a contract that prohibits a person from selling goods other than those belonging to a specific person or company. Essentially, if a contract restricts someone from selling products not affiliated with a particular entity, this section of the Patents Act does not nullify that restriction.
It does not validate a contract that would otherwise be considered invalid under different circumstances. In essence, if a contract doesn’t hold up due to reasons apart from the provisions of this section, this section does not provide validation.
This section also doesn't impact specific conditions within a contract for the lease or license of a patented article. For instance, if a contract includes terms wherein the lessor or licensor retains the right to supply necessary new parts for the patented article or to handle its repair, this section doesn’t interfere with those specific clauses.
Overall, these exceptions ensure that certain types of contracts or clauses within contracts are not affected or invalidated by the provisions mentioned in Section 140 - as these contracts are not patent licenses
@@AbhayPorwal understood👍🏻thank you
Sir I am not getting the link of video on section 140..pls send me
These are general "SoP" regarding the patent/patent office. Section 140 is important as it talks about what all clauses in a license agreement are not allowed, 143 talks about no application can get published before the expiry of 18 months, 146/147 talks about the power of the controller to ask for information/evidence/documents, 156 talks about patents being enforceable against govt as well and 158/159/160 talks about the power of HC and government/parliament to make rules. Don't sweat too much over this chapter - have an overview of the provisions available as described above in the comment.
Sir in case a use case is there where a Company want to manufacture a drug for malaria as there is a severe epidemic in some regions of India....He had talks with patentee larva ltd. for licence but negotiations fail....Can thusbe a case of Section 92(3) ...medical emergency, public health crises...But here its not mentioned that Central govt. Has issued notification in official gazette on the basis of which CL can be applied...Will 90 be used here or section 84 And 87 will apply?
We will go through the usual way of section 84 and 87 citing all the conditions which are making the stage set for CL.