Centre for Internet and Society

Course Packs for Education Ruled Legal in India

sinha — 2017-07-14T04:05:00Z

On 9 May 2017, a five year court battle between publishers and universities finally came to an end when the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal by the Indian Reprographic Rights Organization (IRRO) challenging an earlier judgment of Delhi High Court that ruled course packs in India legal for educational purposes.

The article was published by EIFL on July 12, 2017.

In a case that gained wide international attention, issues such as the cost of textbooks in India were raised, students agitated for fair access to educational materials, and the jurisprudence on copyright in India has taken a leap forward. In this guest blog, Anubha Sinha, Programme Officer on Openness and Access to Knowledge at the Centre for Internet and Society India, discusses the judgment in the case known as the ‘Delhi University photocopy’ case, and what it means for access to educational materials in India.

The facts of the case

In 2012, three academic publishers, Oxford University Press (OUP), Cambridge University Press (CUP) and Taylor & Francis, sued the University of Delhi (DU) and Rameshwari Photocopy Service (based at the university) for copyright infringement for photocopying parts of their textbooks and distributing them in course packs - collections of assigned reading materials – exclusively to students for a fee.

The publishers sought to compel Delhi University to enter into a licensing agreement with the Indian Reprographic Rights Organization (IRRO), that manages certain rights on behalf publishers and other rightsholders in India.

The course packs in question comprised excerpts from textbooks on course syllabi at Delhi School of Economics (part of the University of Delhi). The court analyzed the content of four packs that included works such as Transforming India: Social and Political Dynamics of Democracy (OUP), New Cambridge History of India (CUP) and Political Philosophy (Routledge/Taylor & Francis).

The court found that on average 8.8% of the textbooks, that each cost on average 39 USD (2,500 INR), were used in the course packs. Students and faculty were charged a nominal fee of one US cent (40 paise) per page to buy the course pack.

The court’s judgment – no infringement, no licence required

In an interim order in 2012, the court issued a temporary injunction restraining the sale of course packs by Rameshwari. However, the order was overturned when in subsequent judgments (in September 2016 and an appeal judgment in December 2016) the court ruled in favour of the University.

On whether the making of the course packs was a copyright infringement, the court found no infringement because the activities fell under the education exception in Indian copyright law (specifically section 52(1)(i)).

Section 52(1)(i) of the Indian Copyright Act (1957) allows any work to be reproduced by a teacher or pupil for the purposes of instruction. In a liberal interpretation of the provision, the court held that the reproduction of a work is not limited to reproduction by an individual teacher or pupil, it also extends to the action of multiple teachers and students. Further, the court held that the phrase ‘course of instruction’ embraces any instruction for the duration of an entire course or teaching programme, it is not limited only to teaching in the classroom.

On whether the university must obtain a licence to photocopy from IRRO, the court held that no licence is required because the activities are covered by Section 52(1)(i).

The court also found there to be no commercial exploitation of copyright in the works.

During the case, the publishers tried to impute a profit motive on the part of the defendants. They argued that by selling chapters of the books, the defendants were in direct competition with publishers thereby creating an adverse effect on the publishers’ market.

The court rejected the argument holding that students are hardly potential customers for multiple books used in the course packs. For example, post-graduate students might have 35-40 reading assignments per subject.

Without the course packs, students would simply look elsewhere for the material, including the university library. In fact, the court noted that increased access to education has the potential to expand the customer base for such books in the future.

Primacy of purpose

Importantly, the court said fairness of use is to be judged only by its intended purpose i.e. education, and not from any qualitative or quantitative uses (such as which parts of the text are used or the number of copies made).

The court’s judgment on appeal, that references case law from Canada, the USA the UK and New Zealand, emphasizes that the determination of ‘fairness’ of a use rests solely on the “touchstone of the purpose of the use and/or other limitations expressly built in each of these clauses”. Thus there is no requirement to introduce other tests or factors when applying Section 52(1)(i) and so a general fair use principle is to be read into all such provisions in the law.

The case concludes

The High Court remained undecided on two points of fact: whether the works included in the course packs were necessary for educational instruction, and whether the photocopying of entire books is allowed under Indian law. It decided to refer these issues for determination to a trial court.

However, the trial court hearing never proceeded because in March 2017 the publishers decided to withdraw from the case, in a move that surprised observers. A joint statement issued by OUP, CUP and Taylor & Francis acknowledged the important role that course packs play in education, and looked forward to working “even more closely with academic institutions, teachers and students to understand and address their needs”.

In a further twist in April 2017, the Indian Reprographic Rights Organization (IRRO) filed an appeal to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s judgment.

On 9 May 2017, the Supreme Court summarily dismissed IRRO’s appeal.

Impact of the Delhi University case

The ruling in the Delhi University case is a huge triumph for access to educational materials in India over the interests of private copyright holders.

The case shone a light on the socio-economic context of university level education in India, in particular the cost of textbooks. Students became advocates for access to knowledge, and the law on access to educational materials in India has been advanced.

Book prices in India are an issue

A study submitted to the court showed that consumers in the global South often have to commit significantly higher proportions of their income to buy books because absolute book prices are far higher than in the global North. For example, if consumers in the US had to pay the same proportion of their income to purchase the Oxford English Dictionary, it would cost a ludicrous 941.20 USD!

Not even university libraries can afford these prices. While libraries do purchase multiple copies of textbooks, they cannot cater for the entire student population that can ran into hundreds of students enrolled on an individual course.

In addition, the latest editions are not always available to purchase in India. So the absence of course packs would seriously compromise access to education.

“While foreign publishers claim that almost all educational titles have lower priced Indian editions, our empirical research shows this to be false. The vast majority of legal and social science titles that we surveyed had no equivalent Indian editions, and had to be purchased at prices equivalent to or higher than in the West. The lower priced Indian editions were often older and outdated.” - Shamnad Basheer, writing in SpicyIP, one of India’s leading blogs/repositories on intellectual property (IP) and innovation law/policy.

Students, faculty and authors mobilized

The case resonated strongly with the student and academic communities. Two new groups were formed, the Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge (ASEAK) and the Society for Promotion of Equitable Access to Knowledge (SPEAK). Both groups were admitted as interveners in the case in support of the defendants.

Student engagement has continued, increasing awareness among the next generation for fair access to knowledge.

In addition, over three hundred academics from all over the world, including 33 authors whose works were listed in court documents as being included in the course packs, wrote to the three publishers asking them to withdraw the lawsuit. The letter was submitted to the court in pleadings by the defendant.

Copyright jurisprudence advanced

The case has advanced copyright jurisprudence in India.

The making of course packs for educational purposes is allowed by law.

The court’s reasoning in the judgments was based on the socio-economic context of India, the realities of the education system, and the progress afforded by modern technology. These are welcome developments that will enable the law to adapt to new situations and current needs of Indian society.

Timeline

August 2012: Oxford University Press (OUP), Cambridge University Press (CUP) and Taylor & Francis issue legal proceedings against Delhi University and Rameshwari Photocopy Service

October 2012: Interim injunction issued against Rameshwari Photocopy Service restraining sale of course packs.

March 2013: 33 authors of works cited in court documents write to publishers asking them to withdraw the case.

September 2016: judgment issued by Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Delhi High Court; injunction on Rameshwari Photocopy Service lifted.

October 2016: Publishers file appeal against Justice Endlaw’s decision.

December 2016: Appeal rejected by Delhi High Court Division Bench Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Yogesh Khanna.

January 2017: Oxford students and academics urge OUP not to appeal to the Supreme Court.

March 2017: Publishers announce their withdrawal from the case.

April 2017: Indian Reprographic Rights Organization (IRRO) (that intervened in the lower case) files appeal to the Supreme Court.

May 2017: IRRO appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/eifl-anubha-sinha-july-12-2017-course-packs-for-education-ruled-legal-in-india

Consultation on 'National Geospatial Policy' - Notes and Submission

sinha — 2016-03-29T17:03:31Z

The Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, has constituted a National Expert Committee for developing a draft National Geospatial Policy (NGP) to provide appropriate guidelines for collection, analysis, use, and distribution of geospatial information across India, and to assure data availability, accessibility and quality. A pre-drafting consultation meeting for the NGP was organised in Delhi on February 03, 2016. Ms. Anubha Sinha represented CIS at the meeting, and shares her notes.

National Geospatial Policy - Pre-Drafting Consultation Meeting

Keeping in mind the importance of geospatial data in the context of national development, the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, has constituted a National Expert Committee for developing a draft National Geospatial Policy (NGP). The Committee is Chaired by Major General Dr. R Siva Kumar, former Head of Natural Resources Data Management System (NRDMS) and CEO of National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), and Dr. Bhoop Singh, Head of NRDMS and NSDI Division at Department of Science and Technology, as Member Secretary. The Policy aims at providing appropriate guidelines for collection, analysis, use, and distribution of geospatial information across India, and to assure data availability, accessibility and quality.

A pre-drafting consultation meeting for the NGP was organised in Delhi by Dr. Valli Manickam, Professor at the Academic Staff College of India, on February 03, 2016, and CIS was invited to take part in it as the only participant from the civil society. The other participants included representatives from the geospatial industry and industry associations (like FICCI and CII), and Ms. Ranjana Kaul, Partner at Dua Associates. Among the drafting committee members, Major General Dr. R Siva Kumar, Dr. Bhoop Singh, Dr. Sandeep Tripathi (IFS), and Wing Commander Satyam Kushwaha were present.

National Geospatial Policy - Concept Note

The purpose of the meeting was to hear the stakeholders' response to a Concept Note on the NGP, circulated prior to the meeting [1]. The Note sets out the principles and concerns of the proposed policy, which plans to guarantee geospatial data availability, accessibility, quality and in consonance with the imperatives of national security and intellectual property rights. The applicability of the policy is aimed at:

all geospatial data created, generated and collected using public funds provided by Central and State Governments and International donor organizations, directly or through authorized agencies.

The note suggests establishment of an "empowered body" to ensure proper creation, updates, management, dissemination, and sharing of the data, and management of an online portal for the same. The institutional mechanism to implement the policy will be composed of an Appellate authority / National High Power Implementation Committee, the NGP Implementation Committee, and the NGP Steering Committee.

Notes from the Meeting

The Welcome Address was delivered by Dr. Bhoop Singh (Head of NRDMS and NSDI Division, DST) who informed the participants that the Expert Committee had already met National Security Council and heard their concerns on the policy. The principles on which the proposed policy is to be based were also shared. The policy resulted from an exercise started two years ago to fix quality and accuracy of geospatial data, which was when it was realised that there were significant gaps that need urgent redressal. It was also identified that in previous initiatives to manage geospatial data at the national level, some data-generating organisations had been left behind. The chief concerns for the Expert Committee are 1) tailoring a policy suited to India's unique security issues, 2) avoiding a blanket open policy that may lead to misuse of low resolution data, 3) heeding restrictions on mapping, considering that 43% of landmass was not represented on maps presently (a probable solution was to do feature based mapping), and 4) clarifying government regulation of drone-based mapping. Security concerns were raised frequently throughout the meeting. The Committee also recognised that for development, data sharing should be made more open. The Committee was keen to have the private industry as a partner in generation of geospatial data.

Private industry representatives agreed with the objectives of the policy and were willing to contribute to geospatial data generation. The Expert Committee mulled over the possibility of creating a Public Private Partnership to cater to data generation. The private industry complained about the lack of efforts in popularising geospatial technologies and making the process of tenders more transparent.

There were suggestions to examine the policies of other jurisdictions facing similar internal security threats as India, and delineating the types of data that could be openly shared (for instance, geospatial data from border regions versus non-border regions). Segregation of restricted and open geospatial data can also be done on the basis of its end-application, such as for military and engineering purposes. Participants also requested the creation of a clear Do's and Don'ts guideline. CIS presented a written submission that raised seven key concerns. These are listed in the section below.

On the question of making an open data policy, it was suggested that the committee needs to decide the fundamental approach of the policy first - whether the policy should be based on prohibition and restriction, or focus on identifying and regulating open and free geospatial. The UN General Assembly document on Principles relating to remote sensing of the Earth from space provides an appropriate international point of reference [2].

After listening to the concerns and comments of the stakeholders, the core committee made the following concluding remarks:

Existing policies of government and defence should be mapped out to avoid conflict or overlap with the proposed NGP policy
The sharing of data vests with government agencies and other organisations recommended by them – there needs to be a transparent mechanism for such recommendation based sharing
Industry should come up with self-regulatory mechanisms, do's and don'ts, and code of conduct
Develop a secure mechanism for providing data on sensitive areas (in terms of national security;
Even the defence agencies sometimes cannot access maps due to policies of the National Remote Sensing Centre and other agencies – such inconsistencies need to be fixed

It was announced that the next consultation will occur in a couple of months, and will be open to the public at large, including representatives of industry, defence, and civil society.

Key Concerns about the NGP Concept Note

1. Complete lack of availability of open geospatial data from Indian government agencies: No government agency in India publish open geospatial data. While maps are often sold, both in printed and in digital form, they are not provided in a machine-readable open format and under an open license. The concept note towards NGP has made strong commitments towards changing this situation. There is an immediate need to participate in the NGP drafting process, with coordination among various civil society actors interested in open geospatial data, to ensure that these principles are carried into and operationalised in the actual NGP document.

2. Need for explicit and comprehensive set of criteria to determine if a set of geospatial data is sensitive for national security reasons: In formal and informal conversations with various agencies collecting and creating geospatial data in India, the role played by security agencies in blocking proactive and reactive public disclosure of geospatial data, and even intra-governmental sharing of such data, has been highlighted. Addressing this issue requires development of an explicit and comprehensive list of criteria that will establish a clear and rule-based system for identifying if a specific geospatial data set is to be categorised as “shareable” or “non-shareable.”

3. No clarity regarding legal status of citizen/crowd-sourced geospatial data, and initiatives to generate them: Open user-contributed geospatial data, especially through the OpenStreetMap platform, has emerged as a key driver of the global geospatial services industry. There is a legal ambiguity created by the National Mapping Policy regarding generation of such data in India, which came into focus when Survey of India filed a case against Google for organising a Mapathon contest, which invited Indian users to add metadata about physical and built features through Google Maps platform.1 The NGP needs to expressly provide legal sanction (and perhaps framework) for citizen/crowd-sourcing of geospatial data.

4. Fragmented institutional structure for collection, management, and distribution of different kinds of geospatial data: Survey of India, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, and Indian Space Research Organisation are all key government agencies involved in creating and managing geospatial data. Further, Election Commission of India is involved in preparing geospatial data about electoral units and their boundaries. The National Spatial Data Infrastructure was conceptualised to harmonise and centralise the geospatial data management processes, but is yet to be implemented with the backing of a policy or an Act. The NSDI can be institutionalised via the NGP as the national archive, aggregator, and distributor of open geospatial data, being originally collected and created by a range of government agencies.

5. Integration of National Geospatial Policy with National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP): The proactive disclosure of “shareable” geospatial data using open geospatial standards and under open licenses must be carried out under the purview of the NDSAP, and through the open government data platform established through NDSAP. The decisions regarding licensing of open government data, as being discussed by the a committee set up under NDSAP, must also be applicable to open geospatial data that will be published following the instructions of the NGP. Further, instead of multiple online sources of open geospatial data collected by various Indian government agencies, must be identified as the primary and necessary source for publication of open geospatial data.

6. Integration of National Geospatial Policy with Right to Information (RTI) Act: Geospatial data must be treated as a special category of information under the RTI Act, which necessitates that if an Indian citizen requests for geospatial data from a government agency under the purview of RTI Act, the agency must provide the data in a human-readable and machine-readable open geospatial standard, and not only in the printed format, as key qualities of digital geospatial data can be substantially lost when printed in paper.

7. Need for special infrastructure for management and publication of real-time geospatial (big) data, and governance of the same: With increasing number of government assets being geo-referenced for the purpose of more effective and real-time management, especially in the transportation sector, the corresponding agencies (which are often not mapping agencies) are acquiring a vast amount of high-velocity geospatial data, which needs to be analysed and (sometimes) published in the real-time. The need for special infrastructure for such data, as well as its governance, has not been discussed in the concept note for NGP, which is a major omission.

Endnotes

[1] See: https://github.com/cis-india/website/raw/master/docs/DST_National-Geospatial-Policy_Concept-Note_2016.01.21.pdf.

[2] UNGA 41/65. Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Space: http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_41_65E.pdf.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/consultation-on-national-geospatial-policy-03022016

Comments on the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs)

sinha — 2015-10-27T14:46:24Z

Recently, the Indian Patents Office released the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (“2015 Guidelines/ Guidelines”) in an attempt to clarify examination of software related patents in India. This post is a pure analysis of the 2015 Guidelines. The new Guidelines, essentially, narrow the exclusions of secttion 3(k), thereby enlarging the scope of software related applications eligible for a patent grant. More alarmingly, there is low emphasis on the application of the subject matter test, increased ambiguity on the nature of subject matter and an exclusionary list of examples appended to the document. In the following post, CIS highlights these concerns and presents solutions, and also proposes a definition of "computer programme per se". Read on to understand how the new guidelines will potentially lead to an increase in software patenting activity by expanding the scope of patentable subject matter – in negation of the legislative intent of section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.

(Prepared with comments from Pranesh Prakash)

The 2015 Guidelines were stuck in the pipeline for a long time. The first draft was released in 2013 and a round of public consultation later, it paved the way for the current guidelines. The guidelines exist to supplement the practices and procedures followed by the Patent Office (as prescribed in the Indian 'Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure')[1], with the specific objective of ensuring consistent and uniform examination of CRI applications.

To begin with, the Guidelines have been significantly trimmed down from their draft version. CIS had commented on the Draft Guidelines in 2013 and broadly observed/recommended the following:

That the explanation to section 3(k) (Para 2.4) include the subject matter test.
That the Guidelines clarify that section 3(k) intending to exclude “computer programs per se” means excluding computer programs by themselves.
Supplying clarifications to the meaning of Inventive Step

Para 5.3 stated: (ja) "inventive step" means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art;

Ambiguity around the terms “technical advance” and “person skilled in the art” persists.

The Guidelines place CRIs in the same pool as other inventions, to the extent of suggesting that CRIs be evaluated on same standards of novelty, non-obviousness and industrial applicability as other inventions. This is problematic, because CRIs are inventions with features such as obsolence and being largely incremental innovations.
That the guidelines prescribing dictionary meanings for undefined terms (in Indian statutes) – was a dangerous prescription to make because the words “firmware”, “software”, “hardware” and “algorithm” have different meanings in different contexts.
That the guidelines had a misguided sense of ordering the paragraphs. The subject matter test (which should be undertaken first) was mentioned after the narrower test for computer programs per se. To ensure correct examination re CRIs the application of the subject matter test should precede all other patent criterion evaluations.[2]

All the above observations/recommendations still hold true – unfortunately, none of them have been incorporated into the 2015 Guidelines. The few unwanted changes that eventually made their way have nullified the progress the 2013 draft made in terms of providing clarity to section 3(k) and narrowing down the scope of software patents. For instance-

Instead of supplying clarity to terms such as “technical effect”, “technical advancement”, the 2015 Guidelines removethe definition of these terms. However, section 6 lists six questions that must be addressed by the examiner to determine the technical advancement of the invention.
Similarly, the explanation to section 3(k) has been deleted in the 2015 text.
The explanation to “inventive step” made reference to the Enercon case (thereby Windsurfing International Inc. and Pozzoli case), for the determination of inventive step. The explanation has also been discarded in the 2015 Guidelines.
Other changes include providing better definition of Algorithms, making thescope of mathematical model and business method claims under section 3(k) more expansive.

Narrowing down excluded subject matter relating to CRIs

Under the crucial section “Determination of excluded subject matter relating to CRIs” (section 5.4 in the draft Guidelines; section 4.5 in 2015 Guidelines), the 2013 draft deemed inventions consisting of computer programmes combined with general purpose computers as non-patentable. However, a computer programme couple with novel hardware was deemed possibly patentable subject matter. That version stated “5.4.6....In cases where the novelty resides in the device, machine or apparatus and if such devices are claimed in combination with the novel or known computer programmes to make their functionality definitive, the claims to these devices may be considered patentable, if the invention has passed the triple test of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. ” In the 2015 Guidelines, however, section 4.5 does not shed substantive light on the matter of patentability of software combined with novel hardware. Instead a new section titled “Determinants” has been introduced:

5. Determinants

5.1 For being considered patentable, the subject matter should involve either

- a novel hardware, or

-a novel hardware with a novel computer programme, or

-a novel computer programme with a known hardware which goes beyond the normal interaction with such hardware and affects a change in the functionality and/or performance of the existing hardware.

A computer program, when running on or loaded into a computer, going beyond the “normal” physical interactions between the software and the hardware on which it is run, and is capable of bringing further technical effect may not be considered as exclusion under these provisions.

And,

6. Indicators to determine technical advancement

6.1 While examining CRI applications, the examiner shall confirm that the claims have the requisite technical advancement. The following questions should be addressed by the examiner while determining the technical advancement of the inventions concerning CRIs:

(i) whether the claimed technical feature has a technical contribution on a process which is carried on outside the computer;

(ii) whether the claimed technical feature operates at the level of the architecture of the computer;

(iii) whether the technical contribution is by way of change in the hardware or the functionality of hardware.

(iv) whether the claimed technical contribution results in the computer being

made to operate in a new way;

(v) in case of a computer programme linked with hardware, whether the programme makes the computer a better computer in the sense of running more efficiently and effectively as a computer;

(vi) whether the change in the hardware or the functionality of hardware amounts to technical advancement.

If answer to ANY of the above questions is in affirmative, the invention may not be considered as exclusion under section 3 (k) of the Patents Act, 1970.

It is evident from section 5 that the Patent Office intends to expand the scope of patentable subject matter, and narrow down applicability of section 3(k). The clause “a novel computer programme with a known hardware which goes beyond the normal interaction with such hardware and affects a change in the functionality and/or performance of the existing hardware.” contributes to the expansion. There is no definition as to what will constitute“...normal interaction with such hardware...” Neither do the Guidelines set a standard for assessment of “normal interaction.” Should “normal interaction” be determined from the definition/perspective supplied by the vendor, or from the known universe of interactions possible from that device?

Further, as a stakeholder (Anand and Anand) in their comments on the 2013 draft pointed out, increasing the threshold to a novel hardware (and not just a general purpose computing machine) would go against the legislative intent as the requirement of a novel hardware was not mentioned anywhere in the Act.

These gaps may pave the path for a rather broad scope of patentable software inventions.

Secondary application of the subject matter test

“...Therefore, if a computer programme is not claimed by “in itself” rather, it has been claimed in such manner so as to establish industrial applicability of the invention and fulfills all other criterion of patentability, the patent should not be denied. In such a scenario, the claims in question shall have to be considered taking in to account whole of the claims. ”

The way 3(k) functions is that it's a subject matter test for what an invention is (with non-inventions excluded, since an application that has not been found to be in order may not be granted a patent
under s.43, and to be 'in order', the application has to be "for an invention" (s.6, s.10, etc.)). The tests for novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability have to in any case be applied, regardless of the subject matter test. So what the above-quoted sentence does is removes the subject matter test, as it uses "in itself" to mean to the exclusion of patentability tests other than subject matter.

Proposed definition of “computer programme per se”

Further, CIS suggests a definition to "computer programme per se":

"Computer programme per se in the relevant clause means (a) any computer programme in the abstract, (b) any computer programme expressed in source code form, including source code recorded on an information storage medium, or (c) any computer programme that can be executed or executes on a general purpose computer, including computer programme object code designed for execution on a general purpose computer that is recorded on an information storage medium."

Furthermore, since the inclusion of computer programmes in a broader application should not render the application ineligible subject matter, CIS previously proposed an addition to the test:

"We propose a new part to the above test to make the clause clearer. The Manual should specify that “the computer programme portions of any claimed invention should be treated as if it were covered by prior art and patentability should thus be determined with respect to the other features of the invention”. This way, we can ensure that an invention which merely uses or implements a computer programme is not granted patent on the basis of the inventiveness of the computer programme per se."

Issues with illustrative examples

CIS observes that most of the examples provided in the document are things that should *not* be awarded patents as per section 3(k).

8.2 describes a computer programme per se, and awarding a patent to this would (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step)
8.4 describes a computer programme per se. General Purpose Computer. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step)
8.5 describes a computer programme per se. The "repeaters", etc., are software. General Purpose Computer. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step)
8.6 describes a computer programme per se. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step)
8.8 describes a computer programme per se. It can be implemented on any general purpose computer. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step)
8.1 is a simple algorithm, and forms the basis of parallel processing in a computer, of which a wireless device is a subset. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step)
8.1, 8.3, 8.7 have no novelty, no inventive step, despite not being computer programmes per se.

This issue was also raised by stakeholders in their comments to the IPO on the 2013 draft.

Conclusion

The 2015 Guidelines have narrowed the exclusions in section 3(k) – which does not bode well for innovation, especially innovation by startup enterprises. The new guidelines will permit a larger scope of applications to be granted, which will lead to bigger players in the market amassing huger patent portfolios. There is also an urgent need for clarification on “ novel hardware”.

On a broader level, CIS has repeatedly argued for discarding patent protection for software inventions, because of the unique nature of such inventions and the repercussions software patenting has on subsequent innovative activity. The 2015 Guidelines disappoint on rolling back and clarifying software patenting in India.

[1]Chapter 08.03.05.10 of the Manual, containing provisions pertaining to section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 shall stand deleted with coming into force of these Guidelines for examination of CRIs.

[2]The flow chart in the 2013 draft guidelines show a step by step process of examining CRIs. However, the subject matter determination is done towards the end. There is debate on whether there should be a set order for examining patents. However, in the case of CRIs there must be an exception as the statute explicitly prohibits certain types of patents (business method, algorithm etc). As argued earlier, in order to reduce transaction costs, the subject matter test must be made at the very beginning. There should at least be a preliminary determination as to Section 3(k) to reject patent applications for those inventions that can easily be classified under this provision.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-cris

Comments on the Draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2019 concerning Statutory Licensing

sinha — 2019-07-11T07:04:35Z

The Centre for Internet & Society gave its comments on the proposed rules 29,30,31 of the Draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2019. The comments were made in response to Notification G.S.R 393(E) published in the Gazette of India on May 30, 2019.

Preliminary

1. This submission presents comments to the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (“DPIIT”), Ministry of Commerce and Industry pertaining to the notification G.S.R 393(E) containing the draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2019 issued on 30^th May 2019.

2. We commend DPIIT on the release of the draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (“Draft Rules”) and are thankful for the opportunity to put forth its views via this public consultation.

3. This submission is divided into three main parts. This part, ‘Preliminary’, introduces the document; the second part provides an overview of the organization and its research in the field of intellectual property rights; and the third part contains CIS’ comments on the Draft Rules 29, 30, 31.

4. The third part contains two sections. In the first section, we discuss the legal validity of the Draft Rules 29,30,31. In the second part we discuss the general implications of extending the legal regime of broadcasting rights under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (“Act”) to works on the Internet.

About The Centre for Internet and Society

5. The Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus in respect of intellectual property rights include research on domestic copyright and patent laws, international trade agreements and treaties pertaining to these subjects, promotion of creators’ and users’ rights with a view to furthering access to knowledge and openness in the public interest. CIS has also been participating at WIPO-SCCR negotiations in the capacity of an Observer since 2009.

6. CIS values the fundamental principles of justice, equality, freedom and economic development. This submission is consistent with CIS' commitment to these values including the safeguarding of general public interest. Accordingly, the comments in this submission aim to further these principles.

Comments

7. Draft Rules 29, 30 and 31 pertain to section 31D of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. The proposed change in Rule 29 seeks to expand the modes of broadcast for which notice for invoking statutory license under section 31D may be issued - which previously was restricted to only radio and TV modes of broadcasting; and the change in Rule 31 will permit the Appellate Board to determine royalties for all modes of broadcast.

8. In view of current state of technological advancement, it is safe to deduce that the new mode of broadcasting whose inclusion is being contemplated in relation to s. 31D via the changes is “internet broadcasting”. The changes will allow entities that operate over the Internet medium to apply for a statutory license under s. 31D of the Act. In the following part, we submit our specific comments in respect of Draft Rules 29,30,31.

a) Legal validity of the Rules: Vires vis á vis the Parent Act

As per s. 78(2)(cD), the power of the Central Government to make rules in respect of s. 31D expressly exists in respect of “the manner in which prior notice may be given by a broadcasting organisation under sub-section (2) of section 3ID.” Apart from this clause, a general rule-making power is conferred via s. 78(1) only for carrying out the purposes of the Act. We submit that this general power should be exercised within limits of rule-making in the nature of administrative and procedural detail, and should be in consonance with purposes of the Act. In respect of s. 31D especially, the purpose can be inferred from the legislative history of the provision. This was analysed by the Bombay High Court in Tips Industries v. Wynk Music,[1] where the court noted that the concerns raised before the Rajya Sabha Parliamentary Standing Committee (on the Copyright Amendment Bill (2010)) related to radio and television industries only, and in the court’s opinion those two modes specifically were contemplated while introducing s. 31D.[2] Primarily basis this rationale, the court concluded that “internet broadcasters” offering on demand streaming services cannot avail of s. 31D. Further, s.31D(3) expressly permits the Appellate Board to fix royalty rates only in respect of radio broadcasting and television broadcasting.

Hence, we submit that there is no power under s.78 or any other provision in the Act afforded to the Central Government to expand the scope of s.31D, directly or indirectly. In State of Karnataka v. Ganesh Kamath[3] the Supreme Court held that “it is a well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the conferment of rule-making power by an Act does not enable the rule-making authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent there with or repugnant thereto”.

Thus, the extent to which the Draft Rules 29,30,31 alter the intent and scope of s.31D clearly leaves them ultra vires the parent Act. Rules that are ultra vires the parent Act for exceeding the limits of subordinate executive power are void.[4] Hence, the proposed Draft Rules 29,30,31 are both ultra vires their parent Act and void.

b) Implications of extending legal regime of broadcasting rights to works on the public Internet

The release of the Draft Rules 29,30,31 is another attempt to extend the statutory licensing to “internet broadcasters”. The first attempt was when the Central Government released an Office Memorandum[5] (dated 5^th September 2016) to extend statutory licensing under s.31D to “internet broadcasting” companies. We submit that this was based on an incorrect statutory construction by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“DIPP”) and was arbitrary in nature. Noted academics and scholars have highlighted several constitutional infirmities in respect of this memorandum.[6] Unfortunately, the current Draft Rules (29,30,31) raise similar concerns.

Separately, in the context of introducing a broadcasting right for works shared over the Internet – we submit that if the line of argument taken by DIPP that s. 2(dd) read with s. 2(ff) supports the inclusion of “internet broadcasting” is taken to its logical conclusion, any person/ entity communicating to the general public via the public Internet can claim protection of their broadcasters’ reproduction right under our Copyright Act. This “broadcast” will happen via multiple platforms such as YouTube, Facebook Watch, live-streaming platforms, on-demand platforms, etc., and such entities will be entitled to enjoyment of this right. This will lead to a dangerous accumulation of undeserved property rights in Internet giants; unlike traditional broadcasters these companies never put up initial upfront economic investment to distribute works to the public. They were launched on the public internet, and currently thrive primarily off user-generated content. Even in respect of protecting content that is actually created with their investment, copyright law will suffice with its remedies for infringement. Hence, there is currently very little economic and legal basis for extending the legal regime of broadcasting rights for works on the Internet. Thus, we submit that in the domestic approach to modernising our copyright legislation, we must refrain from considering distribution of born-digital/ digitised works over the public Internet equivalent to the function of broadcasting works over cable/ satellite.

9. We are thankful to DPIIT and the Ministry of Commerce and Industry for the opportunity to make these submissions. It would be our pleasure and privilege to discuss these submissions and recommendations in detail with members of DPIIT if the opportunity presents itself.

[1] See Bom (HC) judgment in Case No. NMCD/72/2019

[2] See 227^th Report of the Rajya Sabha Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Copyright Amendment Bill (2010) available at http://164.100.47.5/newcommittee/reports/EnglishCommittees/Committee%20on%20HRD/227.pdf

[3] (1983) 2 SCC 40

[4] See Supreme Court Welfare Association (1989) 4 SCC 187 and State of Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 402.

[5] See ‘Office Memorandum’ available at https://dipp.gov.in/sites/default/files/OM_CopyrightAct_05September2016.pdf

[6] See Letter to Government on Internet Broadcasts (2016) by Shamnad Basheer available at https://spicyip.com/2016/09/letter-to-government-on-internet-broadcasts.html ; and Licensing of Internet Broadcasts under the Copyright Act: Key Constitutional Issues (2019) available at https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2019/01/25/guest-post-licensing-of-internet-broadcasts-under-the-copyright-act-key-constitutional-issues/

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-draft-copyright-amendment-rules-2019-concerning-statutory-licensing

Civic BRICS Forum 2015

sinha — 2015-08-10T14:27:35Z

I attended the Civil BRICS Forum in Moscow last month. My session fell under the Economics and Trade category; and I spoke on the importance of maintaining a balanced IP regime, strengthening access to knowledge and medicines, and ensuring free speech and innovation. The event was held in Moscow from June 29 to July 1, 2015.

The working group also invited comments to the Zero draft recommendations and I drafted a quick response to the problematic aspects of the draft. See the Civic BRICS Forum Statement.

BRICS is a unique interactive format of the five largest and most dynamically developing countries - Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. BRICS member states in total occupied about a quarter of the land on the world map. The total population of the BRICS countries is about 40%. The cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) is about 26% of the global one. However, BRICS is not only a club intended to strengthen the economic impact of the rapidly developing countries, but as well a fundamentally new form of international or rather an inter-civilizational dialogue based on the principles of polycentricity, non-hierarchy and networking. Therefore it seems that BRICS is able to propose a new concept of equal interaction over all vectors of interstate cooperation: in the monetary sphere, allocation of resources, trade, political and human relations.

Our Internet resource will help not only to get acquainted closer with history and activity of the BRICS club, to trace news and analytical articles on the agenda both the international process of BRICS, and Civil BRICS, but also to participate directly in Civil BRICS activity by means of forums of the Dialogues Internet platform.

List of Panels

Culture of BRICS countries 2015-2040: challenges for public administration (2 parts, longer session)
D K Hari, Bharath Gyan
Building racial, ethnic and religious tolerance and nondiscrimination, regulation of migration and integration of migrants (2 parts, longer session)
Anasua Basu Rau Choudhary, ORF Kolkata
System of intellectual property protection and promotion of innovations
Anubha Sinha, Programme Officer, Access to Knowledge
BRICS and construction of a multipolar world
Anchal Vohra, CNN-IBN
MDGs Implementation, SDGs and role of the BRICS countries
Gautam Kirtane, ORF Mumbai
Social role ofintellectual property protection in healthcare
Nilanjana Bose, GHS
Modern global challenges and the role of the BRICS in ensuring peace and security
Rajeswari Rajagopalan, ORF Delhi
Sustainable Energy and Climate Change
Sonali Mitra, ORF Delhi
The role of education and science in the development of human capital
Aparna Sundaresan, ORF Mumbai
Public healthcare development and access to medical services as priority of BRICS international development
Anjali Nayyar, GHS
Socially responsible trade as a tool for further economic development of the BRICS countries
Nilanjan Ghosh, ORF Kolkata
Economics in the finite world
Rajrishi Singhal, Gateway House
Non-Western view on the World's future
Varun Sahni, JNU
BRICS and global South societies in addressing growing inequality
Ashok Malik, ORF Delhi
Involvement of civil society in global governance and shaping the world’s future (open discussion)
TCA Rangachari
BRICS New Development Bank: acting for the common good (open discussion)
Samir Saran, ORF Delhi
Food security and civil society
Rahul Goswami, Centre for Social Markets
Challenges and threats of the modern world: "color revolutions" and use of "soft power"
Mihir Sharma, Business Standard
Money as a Weapon (open discussion)
Pranay Kothasthane, Takshashila Institution
Green economy and innovative development (open discussion)
Kanika Chawla, CEEW
Sustainable development of local administration: municipal and private innovative entrepreneurship projects
Rumi Aijaz, ORF Delhi
BRICS educational space: ways to strengthen scientific and academic ties. Aiming at high quality education (open discussion)
Dhaval Desai, ORF Mumbai
Disease prevention and promotion of healthy lifestyles among children and youth from BRICS-countries (open discussion)
Sarah Farooqui, Takshashila Institution

Download the schedule

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/civic-brics-forum

CIS-India Projects: Overlaps with Digital India

sinha — 2015-10-11T05:19:30Z

This post documents the overlap of CIS India's work with the nine pillars of the Digital India campaign. The list reflects work completed/underway as of September 2015.

Broadband Highways

National Fibre Optics Network: Studying the implementation BBNL and promoting shared backhall infrastructure.
Net Neutrality: Made submissions to the TRAI consultation, DoT Panel and testified before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on IT.
Internet Governance: Engaging with WSIS processes and the ICANN; participating in internet governance consultations.

Universal Access to Mobile Connectivity

CIS advises the deployment of shared spectrum test beds in IIT Hyderabad and IIT Delhi, supported by DEITY (Budget: INR 47.6 lakhs).
Text to Speech engine for 12 Indic languages using FOSS (Budget: INR 1.8 crores).
CIS serves on the High level committee for the National Electronic Accessibility Policy.

Public Internet Access Programme

Advising the Task-force constituted by the Delhi government for the roll out of Delhi Public WiFi.

e-Governance: Reforming Government through Technology

Policy, technical and mathematical research on UID.
Conducting case studies on public sector Big Data initiatives in India (Budget: 80K USD), and designing a research network for multi-year project on Big data in the global south (estimated total budget: 2M USD).
Privacy textbook featuring 50 court cases and 50 laws/policies, citizen’s draft of the privacy bill; domain specific briefs; multi stakeholder roundtables (Budget: 220K Pounds).

e-Kranti Electronic Delivery of Services

Voluntarily advising implementation of the CCTNS project for Karnataka.
Submitted comments on Information Technology (Electronic Service Deliverables) Rules, 2011.

Electronics Manufacturing

Pervasive Technologies Project: This is a 430K CAD research project aimed at increasing indigenous manufacturing of mobile devices in India and China.
National IP Policy and Strategy: CIS has submitted comments to the DIPP on IP reform, in sync with the Make in India campaign.

Information for All

Participation in and research around WIPO negotiations and meetings in support of Indian negotiators aimed at reforming Indian IP.
Submitted comments to the CSIR, DBT-DST and ICAR on development of Open Access policy.
Indic Wikipedia programme: Creating content and engaging with community for six Indic wikipedias (Budget: 200K USD per annum).
Augmenting, supporting, and capacity building for supply and demand of open (government) data in India (Budget: 500K for 2 years).

IT for Jobs

FOSS in curriculum: Encouraged the introduction of FOSS in university curriculum through RTI requests and outreach programmes.
IP reform of product development: Studying the impact of IP on mobile applications development in India.
Undertaking research and analysis of technology incubators in India.
Hosting and facilitating work of several startups, a continuing collaborative process.

Early Harvest Programme

Completed work on Open Educational Resources (OERs) through Wikipedia programmes, providing functioning of NMEICT and other steps.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-india-projects-overlaps-with-digital-india

CIS' submission to Indian Patent Office on Examples of Excluded Patentable subject-matter under Section 3(k) for incorporation in the yet-to-be-released Guidelines for Computer Related Inventions

sinha — 2016-02-22T09:36:52Z

The Patent Office had put the Guidelines on Computer Related Inventions, 2015 in abeyance last month. This step was taken after several stakeholders including CIS made representations to the Office about serious substantive legal issues in the document. In furtherance of the consultative process, a meeting was conducted in Mumbai with various stakeholders, chaired by the Controller General of Patents Design Trademarks (“CGPTDM”). Anubha Sinha participated in the meeting, after which the CGPTDM invited submissions from stakeholders on specific examples on exclusions from patentability under section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, for possible incorporation in the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions.

This post contains CIS' submission on specific examples on exclusions from patentability under section 3(k). You may view the Guidelines here. To read the letter sent to the PMO, click here. To read CIS' analysis of the Guidelines, click here.

It is worth noting that the IPO requested for negative examples of patentability [CRIs that cannot be patented under the Act]. While it is commendable that the IPO sought inputs from stakeholders for negative examples, stakeholders have often requested the IPO to provide positive examples of patentable CRIs. The yet-to-be-released-Guidelines should also mention a sufficient number of positive examples to provide better clarity to stakeholders.

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES ON EXCLUSION FROM PATENTABILITY OF COMPUTER RELATED INVENTIONS
to
THE HON'BLE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS
by
THE CENTRE FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY, INDIA

I. PRELIMINARY

1. This submission presents specific examples on exclusions from patentability, under section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, for possible incorporation in the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions.

2. This submission is based on the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions released in September 2015("2015 Guidelines/ Guidelines"). The Guidelines are in abeyance, presently.

3. The Centre for Internet and Society ("CIS") commends the Hon'ble Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks ("CGPTDM"), Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India for its efforts at seeking inputs from various stakeholders. CIS is thankful for the opportunity to have been a part of this discussion since 2008; and to provide this submission in furtherance of of the feedback process continuing from the stakeholders' meeting conducted by the Hon'ble CGPTDM on 19.01.2016.

II. OVERVIEW

4. The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-governmental organization engaged in research and policy work in the areas of, inter alia, intellectual property rights, access to knowledge and openness.[1] This submission is consistent with CIS' commitment to safeguarding general public interest, and the interests and rights of various stakeholders involved. Accordingly, this submission aims to further these principles.

III. SUBMISSIONS

5. Broadly, we submit that the Guidelines narrowed the legal exclusions on patentable subject matter in section 3(k). Consequently, the Guidelines were arguably in violation of section 3(k).

6. To supply clarity to the examination procedure, CIS has proposed a definition to "computer programme per se" in its previous submissions to the Indian Patent Office :

Further, since the inclusion of computer programmes in a broader application should not render the application ineligible subject matter, CIS previously proposed an addition to the test:

"We propose a new part to the subject-matter test to make the clause clearer. The Manual should specify that "the computer programme portions of any claimed invention should be treated as if it were covered by prior art and patentability should thus be determined with respect to the other features of the invention". This way, we can ensure that an invention which merely uses or implements a computer programme is not granted patent on the basis of the inventiveness of the computer programme per se." [3]

7. Accordingly, CIS would like to highlight examples of specific patent applications on exclusions from patentability, under section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, for considering their possible incorporation in the Guidelines. The applications are:

7.1 Application No.: 112/CHE/2008

Title: Bill payment card method and system

The Asst. Controller General correctly examined and rejected the invention on the grounds of it purely relating to a business method and processor configured software. Applicant had contended, inter alia, that the method claimed a series of steps being executed with hardware features , including a communication network, communication link and other hardware peripherals intrinsic to the execution of the claimed method.

Further, in their reply to the objections in the FER, the applicants stated:

" There is present a database to perform the functions of the card electronically. The processor is configured to receive information, transmit information and/or authorize the card and associated information thereof. The processor may be configured to produce reports, issue reports, confirmation receipt etc.

It also consists of a card which may include electronic and/or magnetic features e.g. a microprocessor, memory and an electronic chip, a magnetic strip, a USB flash drive and a wireless communication device. The card may be configured to communicate with a wired devices, such as by USB, coaxial cable..."

"...The whole process brings out technical effect in a way that this system allows for the payment of bills without the use of a bank account, credit card, or money order. Hence it is a system with technical features producing technical effect. Hence, enhancement of a business or teaching a way in which a business is carried out is essentially not the the prime motive of the instant invention. With its technical character, technical features and enhancement in business comes as by-product of the implementation of the instant invention."

The invention was rejected.

7.2 Application No.: 48/CHE/2005

Title: Structured approach to software specification

The applicant asserted in their reply to the FER[4] that the claims related to an information managing system including at least on processing unit, a system memory, a system bus, a LAN, a remote computer, a video adapter and monitor and a software architecture performing a particular task or implement particular abstract data types. As a result, they contended that the said invention did not fall under the purview of section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.

The application was correctly rejected by the Controller in the first instance itself.

7.3 Application No.: 2019/CHENP/2004

Title: Apparatus and method of a distributed capital system

The FER included objections regarding lack of novelty, inventiveness, lack of constructive features, lack of support for the word "means" , objections towards a business method, computer program per- se towards an algorithm (objections incl. 3(k)) per se and also towards claims relating to mere medium etc.

Further, it was stated by the Office that even the amended claims failed to overcome the said objections because, inter alia, " the subject matter of the claims related to a method of carrying out financial transactions with one or more parties in a Distributed capital system implemented by pure software I algorithms per-se. The said method is a mere business method/algorithm which is implemented in a computer network through software modules."[5]

The invention was rejected.

7.4. Application No.: 4986/DELNP/2006

Title: A method of tracking a radio frequency signal by means of electronic equipment.

The objections in the FER were that, the subject matter claimed fell within the scope section 3(k) as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act 2005, for being algorithm based method. Subject matter as described and claimed in computer program product claims as well fell within the scope of section 3(k), for being relating to computer program per se. The examination correctly disregarded the implementation of the invention on electronic equipment.

The invention was rejected.

7.5 Application No.: 1405/MUMNP/2008

Title: Method for determining an output value from a sensor in automation engineering

Order issued u/s 15 clearly pointed out that the contribution of the applicant was a mathematical method to determine the output variable from the input variable. And since mathematical methods were intellectual in nature, the invention lacked technical advancement.

The invention was rejected.

7.6. Application No.: 914/CHE/2007

Title: A system, method to generate transliteration and method for generating decision tree to obtain transliteration

One of the claims read:

"A system to generate transliteration of source language script into target language script using decision tree based technique with automated supervised learning, said system comprising of

i. a device having memory;

ii. an input device for entering text;

iii. transliteration engine to maintain patterns and predetermined rules used in transliteration of source language script into target language script;

iv. a display device for displaying entered text and transliterated textl and

v. an interface to enable typing in any language and optionally to integrate the transliteration system into existing web-pages."

The application was correctly rejected by the Examiner for on grounds of falling under section 3(k), inter alia.

8. CIS welcomes the initiative of the Hon'ble CGPTDM to provide said illustrative examples. CIS believes that it is essential that the Guidelines avoid violation of section 3(k), and are formed complying with the Indian Patents Act, 1970 and relevant judicial decisions; and keeping in mind the legislative intent.

9. CIS would be willing discuss these submissions with the Hon'ble CGPTDM; and supplement them with further submissions if necessary, and offer any other assistance towards the efforts at developing a Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions.

On behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society
Anubha Sinha
Programme Officer

[1] See www.cis-india.org for details about CIS' work.

[2] Pranesh Prakash, CIS' submission on Draft Patent Manual 2010 , available at < http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-submission-draft-patent-manual-2010 >

[3] Ibid.

[4] See First Examination Report, available at <48-CHE-2005 EXAMINATION REPORT REPLY RECEIVED 31-05-2013.pdf>

[5] See First Examination Report for Application No.: 2019/CHENP/2004

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-submission-to-indian-patent-office-on-examples-of-excluded-patentable-subject-matter-under-section-3-k-for-incorporation-in-the-yet-to-be-released-guidelines-for-computer-related-inventions

CIS' Submission to DIPP and CGPDTM at meeting with IP Stakeholders

sinha — 2017-12-13T14:31:54Z

The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks held a meeting with IP stakeholders on December 7, 2017, chaired by the Secretary, DIPP, to take suggestions on improving procedures and functioning of the Office. Anubha Sinha attended the meeting and requested the DIPP to improve compliance of uploading Form 27s by patentees and ensure proper enforcement of related provisions within the Indian Patent Act, 1970. Additionally, we sent a detailed submission to the Office, drawing from our recent research. Thanks to Rohini Lakshane and Aman Goyal for their inputs.

Submission to the Department of Industrial Planning and Promotion (DIPP) at Meeting with IP Stakeholders on 07 December, 2017

1. As the DIPP is aware, the Indian mobile device manufacturing industry is mired in issues related to licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs). Disputes have resulted in imposition of heavy interim royalty rates on Indian manufacturers, payable to foreign SEP holders. Section 146(2) of the Patent Act, 1970 mandates patentees to provide information on working of patents, which is crucial for willing licensees to access patent working information in a timely manner. This requirement, that the details of patent working be disclosed by patentees supports the goal of making unworked patents available for compulsory licensing in India, both to promote economic development and public access to patented products. Penalties for failing to furnish such information (via Form 27) are steep, potentially resulting in fines or imprisonment.

2. We note that in 2009, 2013 and 2015 the Controller issued public notices calling on patent owners to comply with their obligations to file statements of working on Form 27. Further, on February 12, 2013, the Indian Patent Office (IPO) announced plans to make Form 27 submissions for the year 2012 available to the public via the IPO website.

3. We commend the efforts of the IPO, however, our empirical research on ICT innovations[i] as well as by Prof. Shamnad Basheer (on ICT and pharmaceutical sector)[ii] reveals that there are serious lapses as far as compliance and enforcement of statutory provisions mandating filing of Form 27 are concerned.

4. In the past year, we studied data available from 2009- 2016 for the mobile device sector, and could only identify and access 4,916 valid Forms 27, corresponding to 3,126 mobile device patents, leaving 1,186 Indian patents for which a Form 27 could have been filed, but was not found.[iii] For a surprising number of Form 27s (3%) the working status of the relevant patent was not designated.

Even among the Form 27s that had been obtained, almost none contained useful information regarding the working of the subject patents or fully complying with the informational requirements of the Indian Patent Rules. Many patentees simply omitted required descriptive information from their forms without any explanation.[iv]

Via our research we also gathered complaints raised by patentees and industry observers regarding the structure of the Form 27 requirement itself. For example, patents covering complex, multi-component products that embody dozens of technical standards and thousands of patents may not necessarily be amenable to the individual-level data requested by Form 27.

5. Regardless, we submit that these technical difficulties should not hinder the critical statutory requirement placed on patent holders to diligently comply with Form 27 compliance. In the context of licensing of SEPs, several stakeholders recently suggested solutions as revealed from our study of the submissions made to the TRAI Consultation on Promoting Local Telecom Manufacturing[v]:

Two industry associations, namely Telecom Equipment Manufacturers Association of India (TEMA) and Telecom Equipment & Services Export Promotion Council (TEPC) and a telecommunication enabler Vihan Network Limited recommended that a modified and longer version of Form 27 (Form 27S) may be designed for SEP holders that should apply right at the filing stage. Section 159 of the Patent Act, 1970 empowers the central government to make such modifications to the form, as necessary.[vi]
Further, Prof. T Ramakrishna (MHRD Chair on Intellectual Property Rights) at NLSIU, specifically recommended that Form 27 may be amended to include a new column, which may require the patent holder to declare if their patent forms a part of any standard and in case of affirmative answer – the name of the Standard Setting Organisation and corresponding standard of which it is a part.

6. Further, we would like to draw attention to how our study was limited by the technical capabilities of the Indian Patent Office’s online Form 27 repository, such as[vii]:

IPAIRS returned either a 404 error or Connection Time Out ("site is taking too long to respond") http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/patentsearch/search/index.aspx. In our opinion, it could be redirected to InPASS as it uses the same search engine as InPASS. Further, http://ipindia.nic.in/patsea.htm returned a 404 error.
Some PDFs of the forms comprise scanned image files without OCR of the text. This makes them inaccessible to the visually impaired, and prevents search and discoverability of their content. This also makes them less usable by preventing copying and selection of text.
In some cases, it was difficult to identify which one in the list of documents associated with a patent is Form 27, because of obscure filenames.

For example, for Patent Number 262228, Form 27 was named 68.262228.pdf, as found on IPAIRS.
For Patent number 260603, the filename for Form 27 was "ipindiaonline.gov.in_epatentfiling_online_frmPreview.asp.pdf" on IPAIRS.

Inconsistency in search results found on IPAIRS. Searching for the peripheral documents of the patents, returned the results, "No PDF found" for one full week. The next week, the documents started showing. Some searches returned results for an entirely different patent number.
Sometimes, Form 27 found on InPASS was not found on IPAIRS and vice versa.
Runtime errors occur due to browser caching.

7. We are thankful to DIPP for the opportunity to make these submissions. It would be our pleasure and privilege to discuss these submissions and recommendations in details with the DIPP. We also offer our assistance on other matters aimed at developing a suitable policy framework for SEPs and FRAND in India, and, working towards sustained innovation, manufacture and availability of mobile technologies in India.

Annexure

Complete Data of CIS’ Study[i]

[i] See Contreras, Jorge L. and Lakshané, Rohini and Lewis, Paxton, Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products (October 1, 2017). NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law; Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3004283

[ii] See Shamnad Basheer, Making Patents Work: Of IP Duties and Deficient Disclosures, 7 QUEEN MARY J. INTELL. PROP. 3, 16-17 (2017).

[iii] Supra note 1.

[iv] Refer to Appendix for a breakdown of compliance of Form 27 by patent holders in the mobile device sector.

[v] See TRAI’s Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing dated 18.09.2017 and the responses, available here: http://trai.gov.in/consultation-paper-promoting-local-telecom-equipment-manufacturing?page=2

[vi] Section 159 of the Patent Act, 1970 empowers the central government to make rules. Accordingly, the Rule 131 of the Patents Rules, 2003 prescribes Form 27 as the manner in which section 146(2) of the Act is to be implemented.

[vii] An email by Rohini Lakshane (CIS) compiling these issues was sent to Dr. K.S. Kardam (Senior Joint Controller of Patents and Designs - ‎Indian Patent Office) on 09.09.2017.

[viii] See Contreras, Jorge L. and Lakshané, Rohini and Lewis, Paxton, Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products (October 1, 2017). NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law; Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3004283

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-submissions-to-dipp-and-cgptdm-at-meeting-with-ip-stakeholders

CIS' Submission on Statement of Working of Patents

sinha — 2018-04-21T15:32:00Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) made a submission to the Indian Patent Office on the issue of Statement of Working as per Form 27 under the Patents Act, 1970.

Select stakeholders were invited to the consultation meeting held on April 6, 2018. Anubha Sinha attended it along with a few other public-spirited stakeholders. She made a statement stressing on the requirement of the patent system to serve the welfare-purpose and not create mere non-working/ blocking monopolies; and that the argument of representatives of patentees about non-working of patents being the existing norm, and that they cannot be questioned about this, is absolutely against the central tenets of patent law. All written submissions can be accessed here.

Centre for Internet and Society - India’s (CIS) submission to the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) pertaining to Stakeholders Meeting regarding issues related to Working of patents under the Patents Act, 1970

As the CGPDTM is aware, the Indian mobile device manufacturing industry is mired in issues related to licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs). Disputes have resulted in imposition of heavy interim royalty rates on Indian manufacturers, payable to foreign SEP holders. Section 146 and Rule 131 of the Patents Act, 1970 mandate patentees to provide information on working of patents, which is crucial for willing licensees to access patent working information in a timely manner. This requirement, that the details of patent working be disclosed by patentees supports several policy goals, firstly, of making the Indian population benefit from commercial use of the invention; secondly, prevents patentees from creating blocking monopolies – from obtaining and maintaining patents for the purpose of blocking others from developing technologies in the vicinity of the patented inventions; and thirdly, by showing that reasonable requirements of the public are met (or not), directly impacts the implementation of the compulsory licensing scheme of the Patents Act, 1970.
We note that in 2009, 2013 and 2015 the CGPDTM issued public notices calling on patent owners to comply with their obligations to file statements of working on Form 27. Further, on February 12, 2013, the Indian Patent Office (IPO) announced plans to make Form 27 submissions for the year 2012 available to the public via the IPO website. However, these measures have not yielded any significant progress, as patentees and licensees continue to not comply or defectively comply with the statutory requirements.
CIS’ empirical research on ICT innovations reveals that there are serious lapses as far as compliance and enforcement of statutory provisions mandating filing of Form 27 are concerned. In the past year, we studied data available from 2009- 2016 for the mobile device sector, and could only identify and access 4,916 valid Forms 27, corresponding to 3,126 mobile device patents, leaving 1,186 Indian patents for which a Form 27 could have been filed, but was not found. For a surprising number of Form 27s (3%) the working status of the relevant patent was not even designated.

Even among the Form 27s that had been obtained, almost none contained useful information regarding the working of the subject patents or fully complying with the informational requirements of the Indian Patent Rules. Many patentees simply omitted required descriptive information from their forms without any explanation.

Via our research we also gathered complaints raised by patentees and industry observers regarding the structure of the Form 27 requirement itself. For example, patents covering complex, multi-component products that embody dozens of technical standards and thousands of patents may not necessarily be amenable to the individual-level data requested by Form 27.

Thus, our findings support the arguments and findings made by the petitioners in the ongoing matter of Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India and Ors.
Regardless, we submit that these technical difficulties should not hinder the critical statutory requirement placed on patent holders to diligently comply with Form 27 compliance. In the context of licensing of SEPs, several stakeholders recently suggested solutions as revealed from the submissions made to the TRAI Consultation on Promoting Local Telecom Manufacturing:

Two industry associations, namely Telecom Equipment Manufacturers Association of India (TEMA) and Telecom Equipment & Services Export Promotion Council (TEPC) and a telecommunication enabler Vihan Network Limited recommended that a modified and longer version of Form 27 (Form 27S) may be designed for SEP holders that should apply right at the filing stage. Section 159 of the Patent Act, 1970 empowers the central government to make such modifications to the form, as necessary.

Further, Prof. T Ramakrishna (MHRD Chair on Intellectual Property Rights) at NLSIU, specifically recommended that Form 27 may be amended to include a new column, which may require the patent holder to declare if their patent forms a part of any standard and in case of affirmative answer – the name of the Standard Setting Organisation and corresponding standard of which it is a part.

We recommend that the form may be amended to make it more comprehensive and suitable for obtaining necessary information. The same information should be made publicly accessible, in order to satisfy the Indian citizen that the patent is being properly worked.
Further, we would like to draw attention to our findings on deficient technical capabilities of the Indian Patent Office’s online Form 27 repository:
Some PDFs of the forms comprise scanned image files without OCR of the text. This makes them inaccessible to the visually impaired, and prevents search and discoverability of their content. This also makes them less usable by preventing copying and selection of text.

In some cases, it was difficult to identify which one in the list of documents associated with a patent is Form 27, because of obscure filenames.

For example, for Patent Number 262228, Form 27 was named 68.262228.pdf, as found on IPAIRS.

For Patent number 260603, the filename for Form 27 was "ipindiaonline.gov.in_epatentfiling_online_frmPreview.asp.pdf" on IPAIRS.

Inconsistency in search results found on IPAIRS. Searching for the peripheral documents of the patents, returned the results, "No PDF found" for one full week. The next week, the documents started showing. Some searches returned results for an entirely different patent number.

Sometimes, Form 27 found on InPASS was not found on IPAIRS and vice versa.

Runtime errors occur due to browser caching. IPAIRS returned either a 404 error or Connection Time Out ("site is taking too long to respond") http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/patentsearch/search/index.aspx. In our opinion, it could be redirected to InPASS as it uses the same search engine as InPASS. Further, http://ipindia.nic.in/patsea.htm returned a 404 error.
We are thankful to the Indian Patent Office for the opportunity to make these submissions. It would be our pleasure and privilege to discuss these submissions and recommendations in details at the Stakeholders’ Meeting on 21 March, 2018.

On behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, March 16, 2018
Anubha Sinha, anubha@cis-india.org

See Trimble, Markela, Patent Working Requirements: Historical and Comparative Perspectives (2016). Available at http://www.law.uci.edu/lawreview/vol6/no3/Trimble.pdf

See Contreras, Jorge L. and Lakshané, Rohini and Lewis, Paxton, Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products (October 1, 2017). NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law; Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3004283

Supra note (ii).

Refer to Appendix for a breakdown of compliance of Form 27 by patent holders in the mobile device sector.

See Shamnad Basheer, Making Patents Work: Of IP Duties and Deficient Disclosures, 7 QUEEN MARY J. INTELL. PROP. 3, 6-17 (2017).

Also, see https://spicyip.com/shamnad-basheer-v-union-of-india-ors

See TRAI’s Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing dated 18.09.2017 and the responses, available here: http://trai.gov.in/consultation-paper-promoting-local-telecom-equipment-manufacturing?page=2

Section 159 of the Patent Act, 1970 empowers the central government to make rules. Accordingly, the Rule 131 of the Patents Rules, 2003 prescribes Form 27 as the manner in which section 146(2) of the Act is to be implemented.

An email by Rohini Lakshane (CIS) compiling these issues was sent to Dr. K.S. Kardam (Senior Joint Controller of Patents and Designs - ‎Indian Patent Office) on 09.09.2017.

Click to download the submission by CIS made on March 16, 2018 here.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-submission-on-statement-of-working-of-patents

CIS' Comments on the Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science Open Access Policy

sinha — 2014-08-22T15:46:45Z

In July 2014, the Department of Biotechnology and the Department of Science, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India released a draft Open Access Policy. CIS participated in discussions along with experts brought on board by the Drafting Committee to develop and review the open access policy. As a follow-up, CIS prepared comments to the draft Policy. This post makes available CIS' comments to the draft Policy.

The Policy was drafted after multiple rounds of consultation with Ministry officials, eminent academics and experts with prior experience of drafting open-access policies, and CIS. Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam along with the Open Access Policy Committee led the discussions. The draft Policy may be accessed here. You may access CIS' detailed post on its previous work on the draft Policy here. The comments provided by CIS follow.

Click here to download a pdf version of the comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTS ON THE

PROPOSED OPEN ACCESS POLICY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY AND DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE

THE CENTRE FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY, INDIA

I. PRELIMINARY

1. This submission presents preliminary clause-by-clause comments by the Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) on the Proposed Open Access Policy (“the Policy”) of the Department of Biotechnology (“DBT”) and Department of Science (“DST”).

2. This submission is based on the draft document for an open access policy by the DBT/DST. The draft document may be accessed on the website of the DBT.^¹

3. CIS commends the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India for its efforts at seeking inputs from various stakeholders prior to the release of its open access policy. CIS is thankful for the opportunity to have been a part of the discussion during the framing of the Policy; and to provide this clause-by-clause submission, in furtherance of the feedback process continuing from the aforesaid draft Policy.

II. OVERVIEW

4. The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-governmental organization engaged in research and policy work in the areas of, inter alia, access to knowledge and openness.^² This clause-by-clause submission is consistent with CIS’ commitment to safeguarding general public interest, and the interests and rights of various stakeholders involved. Accordingly, the comments in this submission aim to further these principles and are limited to those clauses that most directly have an impact on them.

III. CLAUSE-BY-CLAUSE COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS

5. “An important function of DBT/DST is to support basic, translational and applied scientific research through the creation of suitable infrastructure, by providing funding to individual scientists, institutions and start-ups, and through any other means deemed necessary.”

5.1. CIS has observed the superior standard of scientific research and development performed at DST/DBT^³, and the steps taken to create high quality infrastructure by providing direct and indirect funding to several individual scientists, institutions and start-ups.

5.2. CIS strongly supports DBT/DST’s endeavour to extend the benefits of scientific research to the public produced by the persons in the foregoing comment by creating an open access policy.

5.3. CIS believes that the creation of an open access policy will advance the “creation of suitable infrastructure” by DBT/DST. Further, academic literature argues that open access works have a greater impact than works that are not freely available^⁴ and the public ought to benefit from research funded by the taxpayers’ money.^⁵

6. “Since all funds disbursed by DBT/DST are public funds, it is important that the information and knowledge generated through the use of these funds are made publicly available as soon as possible.”

6.1. The Policy proposes usage of the phrase “made publicly available.”

6.2. It is submitted that the phrase “made publicly available” does not sufficiently convey or establish the specific rights of the public with regard to the use of the information and knowledge generated at DBT/DST.

6.3. Under Indian Copyright law^⁶, the Government is the first owner of research “made or published under the control or direction” of any of its department or public undertaking in the absence of a contract to the contrary. Therefore, the Government is the owner of the knowledge and information generated at DBT/DST.^⁷ The author by virtue of section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, however, retains the following rights in the publication:

a. Identification right or attribution right;

b. Right to maintain integrity in the work; and

c. Right to prevent destruction of the work.

These rights are collectively known as the author’s moral rights. They remain with the author even after assignment of the copyright or first ownership vesting with the Government. Whereas, the Policy permits unfettered access to research, there are limitations on further use of the work placed on third parties by virtue of the aforementioned rights.

6.4. CIS, therefore, in support of maintaining precision of the Policy recommends use of the phrase “made publicly available as soon as possible, subject to limitations prescribed under Indian law.”

6.5. CIS strongly supports the Policy’s rationale to make all knowledge openly accessible because it is produced by public funding. The rationale also aligns with academic literature advocating that the public ought to benefit from research funded by the taxpayers’ money.^⁸

7. “Research funded by DBT/DST results in new ideas and knowledge. However, DBT/DST will not underwrite article processing charges levied by some journals.”

7.1. CIS observes that while a majority of open access publications may not charge subscription or other access fees, they usually cover their operating expenses through other sources by levying processing fees paid by or on behalf of authors for submission to or publication in the journal.^⁹

7.2. CIS believes that the Policy should not cause detriment to persons performing research under DBT/DST, safeguard each person’s interest and career advancement. DBT/DST must create suitable infrastructure to accommodate prevalent practices and ensure the best support for its researchers.

7.3. CIS, therefore, suggests the need to establish a durable mechanism for underwriting reasonable publication charges for articles written by its faculty and published in fee-based open-access journals and for which other institutions would not be expected to provide funds.^¹⁰

7.4. The following methods may be elected to further the aforementioned comment:

a. DST/DBT may insert a provision to factor Article Processing Charges into the researcher’s grant; or

b. DST/DBT may establish an OA Publishing Fund. Funding may emerge from potential sources such as the institution al research division responsible with tracking and managing grant funding.

c. DST/DBT may purchase an institutional membership with OA publishers. Several major OA publishers discount their processing charges if an author is affiliated with an institution that has a membership.^¹¹

8. “The DBT/DST affirms the principle that the intrinsic merit of the work, and not the title of the journal in which an author’s work is published, should be considered in making future funding decisions. DBT/DST does not recommend the use of journal impact factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist’s contributions, or in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions.”

8.1. CIS strongly believes that the policy successfully creates a level playing field for assessment of quality of publications by making the title of the journal irrelevant.

8.2. CIS observes that the particular clause uses “title of the journal” to imply that the title is irrelevant as a factor to judge the merit of the work; whereas in the following sentence uses “DBT/DST does not recommend the use of journal impact factors” as a factor to assess quality of the work. The synonymous use creates an impression that “journal impact factor” is similar to “title of the journal”, which is a specious representation.

8.3. CIS submits that “journal impact factor” is a measure reflecting the average number of citations to recent articles published in the journal, and is only one of the many methods of calculating quality of a publication.^¹²

8.4. CIS suggests that the clause may be amended as follows, insofar as the preceding comments are concerned:

“The DBT/DST affirms the principle that the intrinsic merit of the work, and not the title of the journal in which an author’s work is published, should be considered in making future funding decisions. DBT/DST does not recommend the use of journal impact factors either, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist’s contributions, or in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions.”

8.5. Further, CIS submits that open access is in a nascent stage in Indian academia, and a person performing research under DBT/DST may lose external benefits by adhering to this clause. In reality, open access journals are yet to cultivate the high quality readership that certain subscription based journals enjoy. The clause prematurely puts a burden on researchers to not publish in subscription based journals enjoying a stellar reputation. Further, mere posting in online repositories will not ensure that the research will be successfully read and critiqued by other members of the academia.

8.6. CIS believes that DBT/DST should provide sufficient infrastructure and freedom to allow researchers to publish by a method of their choice, and not put unnecessary restrictions on the same.

9. “The DBT/DST believe/s that maximizing the distribution of these publications by providing free online access by depositing them in a gratis open access repository is the most effective way of ensuring that the research it funds can be accessed, read and built upon. This, in turn, will foster a richer research culture.”

9.1. CIS strongly agrees with DBT/DST’s method of disseminating research. The method is in harmony with the principles of open access since it provides free online access by depositing manuscripts in an open access repository.

9.2. CIS submits that the clause may include depositing full-text, metadata and supplementary materials in addition to the paper, in consonance with Clause 12 of this submission.

10. “Grantees can make their papers open-access by publishing in an open-access journal or, if they choose to publish in a subscription journal, by posting the final accepted manuscript to an online repository.”

10.1. The clause indicates that papers may be made open access via two routes, firstly, publishing the paper in an open-access journal, and secondly, publishing the paper in a subscription journal. Publishing the paper in a subscription journal entails the grantee to also post the final manuscript to an online repository.

10.2. CIS strongly supports the Policy’s direction to grantees to deposit “the final accepted manuscript to an online repository” upon adoption of the second route.

10.3. However, CIS believes that to ensure that ends of open access completely meet; the papers should be mandatorily deposited in online repositories which are freely accessible to the public i.e. following the Green OA route completely.

10.4. To strengthen foregoing comment, CIS strongly suggests establishment of a central online repository under the aegis of DST/DBT. This will guarantee open access to the manuscript in the unfortunate case of the institutional repository failing or delaying in tying up with other institutional repositories and the central repository.

10.4. It is submitted that the clause may be accordingly amended as follows^¹³:

“Grantees can make their papers open-access by publishing in an open-access journal and posting the final manuscript to a central online repository, or by publishing in a subscription journal and posting the final accepted manuscript i.e. the pre-print version to the central online repository. A preprint is any version of the paper prior to peer-review and publication, usually the version submitted to a journal.”

What should be deposited?

11. “The final accepted manuscript (after refereeing, revision, etc.) resulting from research projects fully or partially funded by DBT/DST or performed using infrastructure built with the support of DBT/DST and to appear in peer-reviewed professional journals. This also includes review articles, both invited and author initiated, for those who received funding from DBT/DST during that period.”

11.1. It is submitted that the clause fails to declare the applicability of the Policy to non-peer reviewed works, inter alia, doctoral dissertations.

11.2. CIS observed that the DBT offers post-graduate programs, including the DBT Postdoctoral Fellowship (DBT- PDF) programme and Post-Graduate programs, inter alia.^¹⁴

11.3. CIS supports the extension of the policy to works produced under all programs at DBT/DST (mentioned in the foregoing comment) to increase the efficacy of the Policy and to fulfil greatest dissemination of public funded research.

12. “The full-text of the paper and metadata should be deposited. Supplementary materials should be made available along with the publication. At the end of the full-text the acknowledgement should carry the grant number.”

12.1. CIS strongly supports the deposit of metadata, full-text of the paper to be made available along with other supplementary materials.

12.2. This clause rightly seeks supplementary material to ensure holistic access to the research.

12.3. CIS believes that DST/DBT should ensure that the aforementioned material is deposited in a machine readable format thereby permitting accurate search across the open access infrastructure and supporting interoperability. This will lead to a high degree of openness and foster a more rigorous academic culture.

12.4. In furtherance of the preceding comment, CIS submits that DBT/DST may use Digital Object Identifiers (“DOI”) to create persistent citations of publications available online. DOI ensures interoperability across systems and accurate linking of all material in relation to a publication. OECD has successfully implemented the system in its library system, namely, the OECD iLibrary.^¹⁵

12.4. CIS encourages DBT/DST to develop a more detailed policy on issues affecting the infrastructure required to successfully implement open access at it.

13. “Papers resulting from funds received from the fiscal year 2012-13 onwards are required to be deposited. Authors are strongly urged to also deposit final accepted manuscripts from funding received in earlier years.”

13.1. CIS strongly agrees with the scheme of depositing papers.

13.2. It is submitted that this clause will dispel ambiguity for requirement of depositing papers published prior to 2012.

Where to deposit?

14. “The manuscript should be deposited in the grantee’s own institution’s interoperable institutional repository (IR). If the institution does not yet have an IR of its own, then the paper should be deposited in the central repository, which will be created by DBT/DST.”

14.1. CIS strongly supports depositing papers in the aforementioned repositories.

14.2. It is submitted that the manuscript may be mandatorily be deposited in a central online repository (as suggested in the preceding comments), in addition to the grantee’s own institution’s interoperable institutional repository.^¹⁶ This will guarantee open access to the manuscript in the unfortunate case of the institutional repository failing or delaying in tying up with other institutional repositories and the central online repository.

When to deposit?

15. “Deposits should be made within one week of acceptance by the journal. However, if the journal insists on an embargo, the material should still be deposited, but the repository will keep the deposited papers non-OA and only make it fully OA at the end of the embargo period.²Suggest that the period of embargo not be greater than one year.”

15.1. CIS strongly supports the time-frame provided for depositing the paper, and the subsequent clause for keeping the paper “dark OA” in the case of an embargo placed on the paper by the publisher.

15.2. CIS suggests that the sentence “Suggest that the period of embargo not be greater than one year” be re-framed to reflect a conclusive position of the DST/DBT.

15.3. CIS submits that the clause may be amended as follows:

“Deposits should be made within one week of acceptance by the journal. However, if the journal insists on an embargo, the material should still be deposited, but the repository will keep the deposited papers non-OA and only make it fully OA at the end of the embargo period. The embargo should operate for a maximum period of one year.”

Who should deposit?

16. “This policy applies to individual scientists/institutions who have directly received ad-hoc funding or other support/benefits/infrastructure from DBT/DST as well as to scientists working at DBT/DST-aided autonomous institutions who benefit directly or indirectly from the infrastructure and core funding provided by DBT/DST.”

16.1. CIS strongly supports the inclusion of scientists and researchers into the scope of the Policy.

16.2. It is submitted that extending the scope of the Policy to apply to direct beneficiaries as well as indirect beneficiaries of DBT/DST funding/infrastructure shall ensure open access to a large amount of invaluable research.

16.3. The clause may be amended as follows:

“This policy applies to individual scientists/researchers/institutions who have directly received ad-hoc funding or other support/benefits/infrastructure from DBT/DST as well as to scientists/researchers working at DBT/DST-aided autonomous institutions who benefit directly or indirectly from the infrastructure and core funding provided by DBT/DST.”

17. “The principal investigator (PI) or someone authorized by the PI, or anyone authorized by the head of the institution where the work is carried out (such as the librarian), can deposit the papers. Both the PI and the head of the institution will be responsible for timely deposit of the paper.”

17.1. CIS supports the process chalked out to deposit the papers.

17.2. It is submitted that a formal procedure shall ensure efficient and timely deposit of the papers.

Depositing in a repository is mandatory

18. “Unless the deposit ID is quoted in the project report as well as in future proposals for funding, the proposals will not be considered.

Unless the deposit ID is quoted in the project report as well as in future proposals for funding, the proposals will not be considered.

In the rare case where the PI or head of the institution has some valid reasons for not complying with these requirements they should give a suitable explanation in the final report.

For research carried out in institutions under the administrative control of DBT/DST:

Authors of papers that will have no such deposit ID shall not be considered for promotion/appointment/ award/Fellowship/Research Grant.”

18.1. CIS supports the procedure to ensure mandatory deposits in a repository.

18.2. It is submitted that creating unique deposit IDs shall ensure that the PI or head of the institution oversees the process of making a paper open access more efficiently. Further, the clause incentivises authors to gain a deposit ID by depositing their papers in a repository, thereby maximizing open access.

How to deposit?

19. “In case of IRs, the IR administrator (and his/her team) will deposit the material on behalf of the authors. If one wants to deposit the material in the central repository, the author (or one of the authors in case of many) should forward the material to the administrator of the central repository. Those who want to self-archive in an IR may obtain the credentials from the administrators.”

19.1. The clause prescribes the methods prescribed in the Policy to deposit a paper.

19.2. However, CIS believes that depositing papers in the Central repository should be mandatory, since tie-ups with the institutional repositories may fail or get delayed. The Policy should aim at reducing administrative barriers in interest of making papers open access in the least amount of time.

Copyright

20. “In case the scientist produces research as part of her employment with a government body, the copyright vests in the government body, unless otherwise agreed upon to the contrary. Therefore, if the copyright continues to vest in the Government, transfer of rights would have to be by the Government, or by the scientist after prior permission from the Government. If the research has been produced by the scientist in the course of her employment with any institution, copyrights vests in the institution concerned, unless otherwise agreed upon to the contrary. The institution should retain the right to make the articles freely available gratis, whether the journal is open- access or subscription-based.”

20.1. CIS strongly supports the Policy in regard to informing the author about their ownership rights in the research.

20.2. CIS strongly supports a legal arrangement whereby the author is transferred complete copyright in his/her work; and the Government retains a non-exclusive, irrevocable and perpetual licence to disseminate the work publicly for the purposes of this Policy.

20.3. In furtherance of the preceding comment, the clause may be amended as follows:

“In case the scientist/researcher produces research as part of her employment with a government body, the copyright legally vests in the government body, unless otherwise agreed upon to the contrary. In the interest of the authors, the Government will transfer copyright in the work to the author, subject to reservation of certain rights. The Government should retain the right to reproduction of works, to issue copies of the works freely available gratis, whether the journal is open- access or subscription-based.”

21. “The DBT/DST recommend/s that all authors receiving funds from DBT/DST should, at the time of returning the copyright transfer form, inform the publisher that they would retain the right to place the full-text of the final author version in the institution’s IR and DBT/DST Central. This can be achieved by attaching to the copyright transfer agreement the DBT/DST author addendum.”

21.1. CIS strongly supports the pre-condition to be placed by the authors before the publisher before permitting publication of their papers.

21.2. It is submitted that retaining the right to deposit papers in the appropriate repositories shall ensure open access to research produced by the authors, and place a legal obligation on the publisher to honour the principle of open access by virtue of the copyright transfer agreement.

IV. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

22. The Centre for Internet and Society welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposed Open Access Policy of the Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science and commends the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India for its initiative in seeking inputs from the stakeholders.

23. To that end, reiterating its commitment to the values of access to knowledge, openness, freedom of information, protection of general public interest and safeguarding various stakeholders’ interests and rights, the Centre for Internet and Society presents the following concluding observations:

a. That the Policy uses the phrase “made publicly available as soon as possible, subject to limitations prescribed under Indian laws” to adequately convey its purposes.

b. That the Policy may create various mechanisms for underwriting reasonable publication charges for articles written by its faculty and published in fee-based open-access journals and for which the respective institutions would not be expected to provide funds. The mechanisms are as follows:

(i) DST/DBT may insert a provision to factor Article Processing Charges into the researcher’s grant; or

(ii) DST/DBT may establish an OA Publishing Fund. Funding may emerge from potential sources such as the institutional research division responsible with tracking and managing grant funding.

(iii) DST/DBT may purchase an institutional membership with OA publishers.

c. That the Policy should clearly distinguish between journal impact factors and title of the journal in respect of assessing the quality of the publication

d. That to ensure that ends of open access completely meet; the papers should be mandatorily deposited in a central online repository (established by DBT/DST) which is freely accessible to the public i.e. following the Green OA route in toto.

e. That non- peer reviewed works produced at DBT/DST, in addition to peer reviewed works also be deposited by the authors and therefore be included in the appropriate clause.

f. That to ensure that the full-text, meta data and supplementary material is deposited in a machine readable format thereby permitting accurate search across the open access infrastructure; The policy may develop a more rigorous plan for creating adequate infrastructure to ensure interoperability.

g. That the Policy may consider using DOI to establish a robust infrastructure.

h. That the manuscript may be mandatorily deposited a central online repository, in addition to the grantee’s own institution’s interoperable institutional repository to ensure that ends of open access are met.

i. That the copyright should vest with the author and the Government may retain rights to reproduction of the work in order to issue free copies of the work to the public.

j. That certain sentences be suitably modified, as discussed in the preceding sections of these comments.

k. That the Policy fails to establish a target timeline to achieve the objectives and setting up of required infrastructure, thereby rendering the collaborative obligations and duties of various stakeholders undefined. The Policy may insert a clause for the same as follows:

“Targets of the DST-DBT Open Access Policy Implementation (broadly):

Conclude the final terms and conditions of the Policy by <insert date>.
Create a central online repository for authors to submit their material by <insert date>.¹⁷
Encourage institutions to create respective institutional repositories.
Create a website with a user-friendly interface to enable access to the public by <insert date>”

That the Policy fails to address the remedies for non-compliance of its terms and condtitions by any party i.e Government, institution, researcher/scientist. A clause may be inserted as follows:

“Compliance

Researcher/scientist

1. In the event of the researcher/scientist entering into an agreement with a journal publisher, which stipulates unreasonable conditions on the accessiblity, thereby being incompatible with the Policy, the terms of the Policy shall have an overriding effect with regard to making the material publicly accessible.

Institution

2. The insititution shall faciliate and assist the author in depositing the required material in the central online repository.

Government

3. The Government shall enter into a copyright transfer agreement with the author contemporaneously alongwith the conclusion of the employment agreement, and agree to transfer the copyright to the author whilst reserving a non-exclusive, irrevocable and perputal right of reproduction and dissemination of the material deposited. In the absence/violation of a copyright transfer agreement, the Policy grants the researcher/scientist the copyright in the material so authored.”

24. The Centre for Internet and Society would be willing discuss these submissions with the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India; and supplement these with further submissions if necessary, and offer any other assistance towards the efforts at developing an open access policy for the DBT/DST.

On behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society

Nehaa Chaudhari

Anubha Sinha

August 19, 2014

1See “DBT-DST Open Access Policy” available at <http://dbt india.nic.in/docs/DBT-DST_Open_Access_Policy.pdf> (last accessed August 11, 2014).

2See www.cis-india.org (last accessed August 11, 2014) for details about CIS’ work.

3See “Annual Report 2012-13”, Ministry of Science and Technology, available at http://www.dst.gov.in/about_us/ar12-13/annual-report-2012-13.pdf (last accessed August 11, 2014).

4See ‘Do Open access articles have a greater research impact?’, Kristine Antelman available at <http://eprints.rclis.org/5463/1/do_open_access_CRL.pdf> (last accessed August 5, 2014).

5 See “Academic knowledge, Open access and Democracy”, available at http://www.arcadiafund.org.uk/media/5454/open-access.pdf (last accessed August 11, 2014)

6Copyright Act, 1957.

7Section 2(k) of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

8See “Academic knowledge, Open access and Democracy”, available at http://www.arcadiafund.org.uk/media/5454/open-access.pdf (last accessed August 11, 2014)

9See “Compact for Open access publishing Equity”, available at <http://www.oacompact.org/compact/>(last accessed August 10,2014)

10ibid.

11See “Funding open access journal publishing”, Christine Fruin, Fred Rascoe, available at <http://crln.acrl.org/content/75/5/240> (last accessed August 10, 2014)

12 See “Impact factors: arbiter of excellence?”, Martin Frank, available at < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC141180/#n102> (last accessed August 14, 2014)

13 See “Open Access Overview”, Peter Suber, available at <http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm> (last accessed August 14, 2014).

14See “Human Resource Development: Program”, available at <http://dbtindia.nic.in/uniquepage.asp?id_pk=16> (last accessed August 11, 2014).

15 See "We Need Publishing Standards for Datasets and Data Tables", Green T, available at < http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/ece/ces/ge.40/2010/wp.8.e.pdf> (last accessed August 11, 2014).

16See “CORE: Three Access Levels to Underpin Open Access”, available at <http://www.dlib.org/dli b/november12/knoth/11knoth.html> (last accessed August 11, 2014).

17See “Streamlined Manual Deposit Progress” available at <https://wiki.library.ucsf.edu/display/OAPI/Streamlined+Manual+Deposit+Progress> (last accessed August 4, 2014)

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/cis-comments-to-the-department-of-biotechnology-and-department-of-science-open-access-policy

CIS Submission on Patents Act

sinha — 2018-04-10T15:48:09Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/files/cis-submission-on-patents-act

CIS Comments to the Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science Open Access Policy

sinha — 2014-08-22T11:05:45Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/cis-comments-to-the-department-of-biotechnology-and-department-of-science-open-access-policy

CIS Comments on TRAI Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing

sinha — 2017-11-26T02:56:15Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) sent comments to the TRAI Consultation Paper on promoting telecom equipment manufacturing. CIS submission drew primarily from the research done in the Pervasive Technologies project.

Read TRAI's Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing

Preliminary

This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet and Society, India ("CIS") on the Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing dated 18.09. 2017, released by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), under Department of Telecom, Ministry of Communications and Information Technologies (“the TRAI Consultation Paper”).
We commend TRAI for its efforts at seeking inputs from various stakeholders on this important and timely issue and are thankful for the opportunity to put forth our views.
We have addressed questions 3 and 5 of the TRAI Consultation Paper. Question numbers referred to in our submission correspond to those in the TRAI Consultation Paper.
Further, the Department of Industrial Planning and Promotion (DIPP) invited comments on SEPs and their availability on FRAND terms on 01. 03. 2016.[1] CIS submitted a detailed response to the consultation, and our present submission will draw significantly from our earlier response[2], as well as new empirical research concluded in the since the time of the consultation.

About CIS

CIS[3] is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. Our areas of focus include IP rights, openness, internet governance, telecommunication reform, free speech, intermediary liability, digital privacy, cyber-security, and accessibility for persons with diverse abilities.
We strive to maximise public benefit, useful innovation, vibrant competition and consumer welfare. This submission is consistent with our commitment to the domestic goals (as enumerated in Make in India and Digital India), and the protection of India's national interest at the international level.

Submission on the Issues for Resolution

“Q.3 Are the existing patent laws in India sufficient to address the issues of local manufacturers? If No, then suggest the measures to be adopted and amendments that need to be incorporated for supporting the local telecom manufacturing industry.”

We submit that amendments to the Patents Act, 1970 may not be preferred, presently. It may be noted that there have been no judgments concluded by Indian courts on disputes relating to licensing of SEPs, yet. Justice Bakhru’s landmark order in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Competition Commission of India (2016) provided valuable clarity on the issue of conflict between remedies under Patents Act, 1970 and Competition Act, 1970. As various other matters are yet to be conclusively decided, and given the complex legal questions involved around the interpretation of Patents Act, 1970 and Competition Act, 2002, and constitutional issues around the jurisdiction of regulators and the power of judicial review of the courts, we believe that it would be prudent to examine the ruling of the courts on these issues in some detail, before considering amendments.

However, to support the local telecom manufacturing industry the Government of India may adopt and implement the following measures:

Develop Model Guidelines to improve the working of Indian Standard Setting Organisations (SSOs): Given the increasing complexity and time-consuming nature of SEP litigation in India, there is a tangible threat of the abuse of the FRAND process, it might be useful for the government to make suggestions on the working of Indian SSOs. The functioning of Indian SSOs has not been satisfactory and it is suggested that the government develop Model Guidelines that may be adopted by Indian SSOs, taking into account India specific requirements. The India specific requirements include a large and exponentially growing mobile device market which has made it possible for manufacturers, patent owners and implementers alike to achieve financial gains even with a low margin. We believe that this measure will also enable the fulfillment of the objectives of the Make in India and Digital India initiatives.

We recommend that various stakeholders, including IP holders, potential licensees and users of IP, civil society organizations, academics, and, government bodies, including the Indian Patent Office, the Department of Telecommunications, the DIPP, TRAI, and, the CCI be consulted in the creation of these Model Guidelines.

In our opinion, the Model Guidelines may cover (a) the composition of the SSO; (b) the process of admitting members; (c) the process of the determination of a standard or technical specification; (d) the process of declassification of a standard or technical specification; (e) the IPR Policy; (f) resolution of disputes; (g) applicable law.
Initiate the formation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and cap royalty payments: In light of the observed inadequacies in the IPR policies of various SSOs in India, as well the spate of ongoing patent infringement lawsuits around mobile technologies, we recommend that the government intervene in the setting of royalties and FRAND terms by setting up a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and apply a compulsory license with a five per cent royalty. Further, patent pools should be required to offer FRAND licenses on the same terms to both members and nonmembers of the pool.

Our motivations for this proposal are manifold. In our opinion, it is nearly impossible for potential licensees to avoid inadvertent patent infringement. As a part of our research on technical standards applicable to mobile phones sold in India, we have found nearly 322 standards so far.[4] It is submitted that carrying out patent searches for all the standards would be extremely expensive for potential licensees. Further, even if such searches were to be carried out, different patent owners, SSOs and potential licensees disagree on valuation, essentiality, enforceability, validity, and coverage of patents. In addition, some patent owners are non-practising entities and may not be members of SSOs. The patents held by them are not likely to be disclosed. More importantly, homegrown manufacturers that have no patents to leverage and may be new entrants in the market would be especially disadvantaged by such a scenario. Budget phone manufacturers, standing to incur losses either as a result of heavy licensing fees, or, potential litigation, may close down. Alternatively, they may pass on their losses to consumers, driving the now affordable phones out of their financial reach. With the objectives of Make in India and Digital India in sight, it is essential that Indian consumers continue to have access to devices within their purchasing power.

Further, how did we arrive at a cap of 5 percent? The rationale for this figure is the royalty cap imposed by India in the early 1990s. As part of regulating foreign technology agreements, the (former) Department of Industrial Development (later merged with DIPP) capped royalty rates in the early 1990s. Payment of royalties was capped at either a lump sum payment of $2 million, or, 5 percent on the royalty rates charged for domestic sale, and, 8 percent for export of goods pertaining to “high priority industries”.[5] Royalties higher than 5 percent or 8 percent, as the case may be, required securing approval from the government. While the early 1990s (specifically, 1991) was too early for the mobile device manufacturing industry to be listed among high priority industries, the public announcement by the government covered computer software, consumer electronics, and electrical and electronic appliances for home use. The cap on royalty rates was lifted by the DIPP in 2009.[6] It is submitted in the case of mobile device technology, we are witnessing a situation similar to that of the 1990s. In this sphere, most of the patent holders are multinational corporations which results in large royalty amounts leaving India. At the same time, litigation over patent infringement in India has limited the manufacture and sale of mobile devices of homegrown brands. While SEP litigation in India is indeed comparable to international SEP litigation on broader issues raised, specifically competition law concerns, but differs crucially where the parties are concerned. International SEP litigation is largely between multinational corporations with substantial patent portfolios, capable of engaging in long drawn out litigations, or engaging in other strategies including setting off against each other’s patent portfolios. Dynamics in the Indian market differ – with a larger SEP holder litigating against smaller manufacturers, many of whom are indigenous, homegrown.

In June, 2013, we had recommended to the erstwhile Hon’ble Minister for Human Resource Development[7] that a patent pool of essential technologies be established, with the compulsory licensing mechanism. Subsequently, in February, 2015, we reiterated this request to the Hon’ble Prime Minister.[8] We propose that the Government of India initiate the formation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and mandate a five percent compulsory license.[9] As we have stated in our request to the Hon’ble Prime Minister, we believe that such a pool would “possibly avert patent disputes by ensuring that the owners' rights are not infringed on, that budget manufacturers are not put out of business owing to patent feuds, and that consumers continue to get access to inexpensive mobile devices. Several countries including the United States issue compulsory licenses on patents in the pharmaceutical, medical, defence, software, and engineering domains for reasons of public policy, or to thwart or correct anticompetitive practices.”[10] We believe that such a measure will not be in breach of our international obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.
Increase transparency in the patent system by making patentees comply with the law: The Patents Act, 1970 requires patentees and licensees to submit a statement on commercial working of the invention to the Controller every year.[11] Form 27 under section 146(2) of the Act lists the details necessary to be disclosed for compliance of the requirement of “working”. A jurisprudential analysis reveals the rationale and objective behind this mandatory requirement. Undeniably, the scheme of the Indian patent regime makes it amply clear that “working” is a very important requirement, and the public as well as competitors have a right to access this information in a timely manner, without undue hurdles. Indeed, as the decision[12] in Natco Pharma v. Bayer Corporation[13] reveals, the disclosures in Form 27 were crucial to determining the imposition of a compulsory license on the patentee. Thus, broadly, Form 27 disclosures can critically enable willing licensees to access patent “working” information in a timely manner.

However, there has been little compliance of this requirement by the patentees, despite the Indian Patent Office (IPO) reiterating the importance of compliance through the issuance of multiple public notices[14] (suo motu and in response to a public interest litigation filed in 2011[15]), and, reminding the patentees that noncompliance is punishable with a heavy fine.[16] Findings of research submitted by one of the parties[17] in the writ of the 2011 public interest litigation Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India and others[18] reveal as follows. First, a large number of Form 27s are unavailable for download from the website of the IPO. This possibly indicates that the forms have either not been filed by the patentees with the IPO, or have not been uploaded (yet) by the IPO. Second, a large number of filings in the telecom sector remain incomplete.

In 2015, CIS queried the IPO website for Form 27s of mobile device patents to arrive at a similar conclusion. We obtained 4,916 valid Form 27s, corresponding to 3,126 mobile device patents from public online records. These represented only 20.1% of all Forms 27 that should have been filed and corresponded to only 72.5% of all mobile device patents for which Forms 27 should have been filed. Forms 27 were missing for almost all patentees, and even among Forms 27 that were obtained, almost none contained useful information regarding the working of the subject patents or fully complying with the informational requirements of the Indian Patent Rules.[19]

Further, in our study, we observed that patentees adopted drastically different positions regarding the definition of patent working, some arguing that importation of products into India or licensing of Indian suppliers constituted working, while others even went so far as to argue that the granting of a worldwide license to a non-Indian firm constituted working in India. Several significant patentees claimed that they or their patent portfolios were simply too large to enable the provision of information relating to individual patents, and instead provided gross revenue and product sale figures, together with historical anecdotes about their long histories in India.

The Indian government has made little or no effort to monitor or police compliance with Form 27 filings, undoubtedly leading to significant non-compliance. We also propose the alteration of the Form 27 template[20] to include more disclosures.[21] Presently, patentees are required to declare number of licensees and sub-licensees. We specifically propose that the format of Form 27 filings be modified to include patent pool licenses, with an explicit declaration of the names of the licensees and not just the number.
Require royalty rates to be decided on the basis of the Smallest Saleable Patent Practicing Component: Most modern telecommunication and IT devices are complex with numerous technologies working in tandem. Different studies indicate that the number of patents in the US applicable to smartphones is between 200,000 and 250,000.[22] A comprehensive patent landscape of mobile device technologies conducted by CIS reveals that nearly 4,000 patents are applicable to mobile phones sold in India.[23] It is thus extremely difficult to quantify the exact extent of interaction and interdependence between technologies in any device, in such a way that the exact contribution of the patented technology to the entire device can be determined. Thus, we submit that royalty rates for SEPs should be based on the smallest saleable patent practising component, and not on the net price of the downstream product.

The net cost of the device is almost always several times that of the chipset that implements the patented technology. Armstrong et al[24] have found that the cost of a 4G baseband chip costs up to $20 including royalties in a hypothetical $400 phone sold in the US. One of the litigating parties in the ongoing patent infringement lawsuits in India has stated that one of the reasons for preferring to leverage its patents as downstream as possible in the value chain is that it will earn the company more royalties.[25] In instances where patent exhaustion occurs much earlier in the value chain, such as in the case of the company’s cross-licenses with Qualcomm (another company that owns patents to chip technologies), the company does not try to obtain royalties from the selling prices of devices for the cross-licensed technologies. It is submitted that such market practices could be detrimental to the government’s objectives such as providing a mobile handset to every Indian by 2020 as a part of the Digital India programme.[26] It is also worth noting in this context that the mobile device is the first and only medium of access to the Internet and telecom services for a large number of Indians, and, consequently, the only gateway to access to knowledge, information and critical services, including banking.[27]

“Q.5 Please suggest a dispute resolution mechanism for determination of royalty distribution on FRAND (Fair Reasonable and Non Discriminatory) basis.”

The licensing of SEPs on FRAND terms requires the parties to negotiate “reasonable” royalty rates in good faith, and apply the terms uniformly to all willing licensees. It is our submission that if the parties cannot agree to FRAND terms, they may enter into binding arbitration. Further, if all efforts fail, there exist remedies under the Patents Act and the Competition Act, 2002 to address the issues.

Section 115 of the Patents Act empowers the court to appoint an independent scientific adviser “to assist the court or to inquire and report upon any such question of fact or of opinion (not involving a question of interpretation of law) as it may formulate for the purpose.”[28] Such an independent adviser may inform the court on the technical nuances of the matter.

Further, under the Patents Act, pending the decision of infringement proceedings the Court may provide interim relief, if the plaintiff proves first, a prima facie case of infringement; second, that the balance of convenience tilts in plaintiff’s favour; and, third, that if an injunction is not granted the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable damage. However, it is our suggestion that courts adopt a more cautious stance towards granting injunctions in the field of SEP litigation. First, in our opinion, injunctions may prove to be a deterrent to arrive at a FRAND commitment, in particular, egregiously harming the willing licensee. Second, especially in the Indian scenario, where litigating parties operate in vastly different price segments (thereby targeting consumers with different purchasing power), it is difficult to establish that “irreparable damage” has been caused to the patent owner on account of infringement. Third, we note the approach of the European Court of Justice, which prohibited the patent holder from enforcing an injunction provided a willing licensee makes an offer for the price it wishes to pay to use a patent under the condition that it deposited an amount in the bank as a security for the patent holder.[29] Fourth, we also note the approach of the Federal Trade Commission in the USA, which only authorizes patent holders to seek injunctive relief against potential licensees who have either stated that they will not license a patent on any terms, or refuse to enter into a license agreement on terms that have been set in the final ruling of a court or arbitrator.[30] Further, as Contreras (2015)[31] observes, that the precise boundaries of what constitutes as an unwilling licensee remains to be seen. We observe a similar ambiguity in Indian jurisprudence, and accordingly submit that courts should carefully examine the conduct of the licensee to injunct them from the alleged infringement.

Concluding Remarks

We are thankful to TRAI for the opportunity to make these submissions. It would be our pleasure and privilege to discuss these comments with the TRAI; and, supplement these with further submissions if necessary. We also offer our assistance on other matters aimed at developing a suitable policy framework for SEPs and FRAND in India, and, working towards the sustained innovation, manufacture and availability of mobile technologies in India.

[1] Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Discussion Paper on Standard Essential Patents and their Availability on Frand Terms, available at https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/discussion-paper-on-standard-essential-patents-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms (last accessed November 13, 2017)

[2] Anubha Sinha, Nehaa Chaudhari and Rohini Lakshane, “CIS’ Comments on Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Discussion Paper on Standard Essential Patents and their Availability on Frand Terms” (April 23, 2016); available at https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-department-of-industrial-policy-and-promotion-discussion-paper-on-standard-essential-patents-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms

[3] www.cis-india.org

[4] Rohini Lakshané, CIS, List of Technical Standards and IP Types (Working document), available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8SgjShAjhbtaml5eW50bS01d2s/view?usp=sharing (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[5] Kumkum Sen, News on Royalty Payments Brings Cheer in New Year, available at http://www.businessstandard.com/article/economypolicy/newsonroyaltypaymentbringscheerinnewyear11001 0400044_1.html (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[6] See Sanjana Govil, Putting a Lid on Royalty Outflows How the RBI Can Help Reduce India’s IP Costs , available at http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/lidonroyaltyoutflows (last accessed 13 November, 2017) for a discussion on the introduction of royalty caps in the early 1990s, and its success in reducing the flow of money out of India.

[7] Nehaa Chaudhari, Letter for Establishment of Patent Pool for Low cost Access Devices through Compulsory

Licenses, available at http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/letterforestablishmentofpatentpoolforlowcostaccessdevices (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[8] See Rohini Lakshané, Open Letter to PM Modi, available at http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/openlettertoprimeministermodi (last accessed 13 November, 2017) for further details of CIS’ proposal.

[9] Rohini Lakshané, FAQ: CIS’ proposal to form a patent pool of critical mobile technology, September 2015, available at http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/faqcisproposalforcompulsorylicensingofcriticalmobiletechnologies (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[10] Id.

[11] Section 146(2) of the Patents Act, 1970.

[12] Sai Vinod, Patent Office Finally Takes Form 27s Seriously, available at http://spicyip.com/2013/02/patentofficefinallytakesform27s.html (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[13] Order No. 45/2013 (Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai), available at http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/0452013.htm (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[14] Intellectual Property India, Public Notice, available at

http://www.ipindia.nic.in/iponew/publicNotice_Form27_12Feb2013.pdf ((last accessed 13 November, 2017) and Intellectual Property India, Public Notice, available at http://ipindia.nic.in/iponew/publicNotice_24December2009.pdf (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[15] Supra note 11.

[16] Id.

[17] See research findings available at http://spicyip.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/FORM27WP1Rcopy.pdf (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[18] In the High Court of Delhi, W.P.(C) 5590/2015. This litigation is currently ongoing. See, illustratively, Mathews P. George, Patent Working in India: Delhi HC issues notice in Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India & Ors. – I , available at http://spicyip.com/2015/09/patentworkinginindiadelhihcissuesnoticeinshamnadbasheervunionofindiaorsi.html (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[19] Contreras, Jorge L. and Lakshané, Rohini and Lewis, Paxton, Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products (October 1, 2017). NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3004283

[20] Form 27, The Patents Act, available at http://ipindia.nic.in/ipr/patent/manual/HTML%20AND%20PDF/Manual%20of%20Patent%20Office%20Practice%20and%20Procedure%20%20html/Forms/Form27.pdf (last accessed November 13, 10`7).

[21] However, we came across some complaints raised by patentees and industry observers regarding the structure of the Form 27 requirement - namely, patents covering complex, multi-component products that embody dozens of technical standards and thousands of patents are not necessarily amenable to the individual-level data requested by Form 27. See Contreras, Jorge L. and Lakshané, Rohini and Lewis, Paxton, Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products (October 1, 2017). NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3004283

[22] Mark Lemley and Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 Tex. L. Rev. at 2015 ; See also, for e.g.,

RPX Corporation, Amendment No. 3 to Form Sl,11 Apr. 2011, at 59, available at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1509432/000119312511101007/ds1a.htm (last accessed 22 April, 2016), quoting “Based on our research, we believe there are more than 250,000 active patents relevant to today’s

smartphones…” .; See further Steve Lohr, Apple Samsung Case Shows Smartphone as Legal Magnet, New York Times, 25 Aug. 2012, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/technology/applesamsungcaseshowssmartphoneaslawsuitmagnet.html (last accessed November13, 2017).

[23] Jorge L. Contreras and Rohini Lakshané, Patents and Mobile Devices in India: An Empirical Survey, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2756486 (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[24] Ann Armstrong, Joseph J. Mueller and Timothy D. Syrett, The SmartphoneRoyalty Stack:Surveying Royalty Demands for the Components Within Modern Smartphones, available at https://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_Content/Editorial/Publications/Documents/TheSmartphoneRoyaltyStackArmstrongMuellerSyrett.pdf (last accessed 13 November, 2017)

[25] Florian Mueller, Ericsson Explained Publicly why it Collects Patent Royalties from Device (Not Chipset) Makers, available at http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/ericssonexplainedpubliclywhyits.Html (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[26] Romit Guha and Anandita Singh Masinkotia, PM Modi’s Digital India Project:Government to Ensure that Every Indian has a Smartphone by 2019, available at http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/20140825/news/53205445_1_digitalindiaindiatodayfinancialservices (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[27] Nehaa Chaudhari, Standard Essential Patents on Low Cost Mobile Phones in India: A Case to Strengthen Competition Regulation? available at http://www.manupatra.co.in/newsline/articles/Upload/08483340C1B94BA4B6A9D6B6494391B8.pdf (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[28] Section 115 of the Patents Act, 1970.

[29] Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. ZTE Corp. and ZTE Deutschland , Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 in GmbH C170/13.

[30] Third Party United States Fed. Trade Commission’s Statement on the Public Interest, In re Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof, U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Inv. No. 337TA745 (Jun. 6, 2012).

[31] Jorge L. Contreras, A Brief History of FRAND: Analyzing Current Debates in Standard Setting and Antitrust Through a Historical Lens , 80 Antitrust Law Journal 39 (2015), available at h ttp://ssrn.com/abstract=2374983 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2374983 (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-comments-on-promoting-local-telecom-equipment-manufacturing

Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest

sinha — 2015-06-24T16:11:07Z

We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest (“Global Congress”), being hosted at New Delhi from December 15 to 17, 2015.

The theme for this year’s Congress will be “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting applications to participate in the Congress, including session participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for panels and workshops.

The application form is available now at [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.

Deadlines

August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).

November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper submissions will close on November 1st.

Application Information

For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in the form.

For applications to attend sessions: Applications to attend sessions as discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or any other relevant information provided by the applicant.

Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing countries.

Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes

The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property policy can best serve the public interest.

The fourth edition of the Global Congress brings research, civil society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes. The 4^th edition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.

The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices; second, the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda; and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects of IP policy and practice.

Participation Opportunities

Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions, cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.

The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development. Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual interest.

The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress.

Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the aforementioned sessions.

The application form for participation is available now at http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or questions, you may contact global-congress@cis-india.org.

Organisation

The 4^th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and Public Interest, is being organised in cooperation with National Law University, Delhi, by the American Assembly at Columbia University, the Centre for Internet and Society, Open A.I.R., and the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at American University Washington College of Law.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/call-for-participation-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest

Breakdown of the list in the July 23rd Order

sinha — 2014-07-08T05:35:42Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/copy_of_Untitled.jpg