This Kat was delighted to be contacted by Katfriend Prashant Reddy of the most excellent Spicy IP blog (the place to go for masterful analysis of Indian IP matters) following his earlier post here, which rather criticised the novelty analysis of the Indian Supreme Court decision denying the patentability of the beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate (Glivec). Prashant kindly invited this moggy to contribute a guest piece to the blog. This Kat found it very useful to revisit the issue, and address aspects of the issues that the first post did not cover. Readers who were interested in the first post (and even those who were not) may care to visit the Spicy IP blog and read it here. Both Merpel and Prashant look forward to your comments.
Readers will note that Prashant is inviting further guest posts on the topic, so aspirant bloggers (or established bloggers wishing to expand their horizons) take heed!
UPDATE Sunday 19 May 2013:
Spicy IP published a reply to my piece by Siva Thambisetty and then invited a rejoinder from me. Here is my rejoinder.
My original IPKat post, and the first Spicy IP blog post, also have a large number of comments (and some replies by me) if you are interested to follow the debate.
Readers will note that Prashant is inviting further guest posts on the topic, so aspirant bloggers (or established bloggers wishing to expand their horizons) take heed!
UPDATE Sunday 19 May 2013:
Spicy IP published a reply to my piece by Siva Thambisetty and then invited a rejoinder from me. Here is my rejoinder.
My original IPKat post, and the first Spicy IP blog post, also have a large number of comments (and some replies by me) if you are interested to follow the debate.
The IPKat gets Spicy - more detail on the Indian Supreme Court Glivec Decision
![The IPKat gets Spicy - more detail on the Indian Supreme Court Glivec Decision]()
Reviewed by Darren Smyth
on
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html