Ministry of Human Resource Development Chair on IPR National ...

echinoidclapΒιοτεχνολογία

1 Δεκ 2012 (πριν από 4 χρόνια και 6 μήνες)

372 εμφανίσεις

Ministry of Human Resource Development Chair on IPR

National Law University, Jodhpur

1


Roundtable Symposium:

The Emerging Legal and Policy Landscape of Intellectual Property Protection for
Pharmaceuticals in India

17
th

and 18
th

March, 2012


Report

Inaugural


The symposium
began with
a formal welcome by
Prof. K. K. Banerji, (Dean, Faculty of
Science & Director
Centre for IPR Studies).
The
inaugural session chaired by
Mr. Dilip Shah (Secretary General, Indian
Pharmaceutical Alliance, Mumbai).

Mr. Shah
emphasized the

need
for a

policy framework and
a
strategic plan by all the developing countrie
s to protect their legitimate interests, especially during
treaty negotiations.

He emphasized that India’s IP law and policy for pharmaceuticals were at a
crossroad, and that much could be done to
exercise the right set of policy choices for the growth of
Indian pharmaceutical industry.

Justice

N.N. Mathur (V
ice
C
hancellor
, NLU Jodhpur)

pointed out the
challenges faced by judges in complying with international convention
s

and protecting national
interests at the same time.
The

session ended with the vote o
f thanks by
Mr. Yogesh Pai

(Asst.

Professor of Law & Coordinator,

Ministry of HRD Chair on IPR, NLU Jodhpur).


(Left to Right): Prof. K. K. Banerji, Justice N. N. Mathur,
Mr. Dilip Shah & Mr. Yogesh Pai

at the inaugural
session

Ministry of Human Resource Development Chair on IPR

National Law University, Jodhpur

2


Technical Sessions:

The
t
wo
-
day roundtable
s
ymposium was spread
in
over five
technical
sessions focusing
on different
aspects of
the ‘Emerging Legal and Policy Landscape of Intellectual Property Protection for
Pharmaceuticals in India’.

1
7
th

March 2012

Day 1 (Saturday
)

10.45am

-
1:00 pm

Session
-

I : The Intellectual Property Regime for Pharmaceuticals:
Contemporary Challenges

Chair:
Mr. Dilip Shah, Secretary General, Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance, Mumbai

Dr. Malathi
Lakshmikumaran (Director, Lak
shmikumaran & Sridharan

Attorn
eys, New Delhi)

began the
first session with her presentation on ‘The Post
-
2005 Patent regime and the Pharma
-
Biotech Sector:
Indian Patent Law and Policy in the Making’.
She discussed various provisions of t
he Patent Act,
1970 which implicate

biotechnology

inventions
. She pointed out
the
thin line between invention and
discovery with respect to biotechnological products

and problems with the ambiguous nature of
legal
practices
.
Since p
atent
s

for isolation of gene
s

or any molecule of living material is
a
gre
y area
and

she felt that
India should clar
ify

the position on this.

In the field of biotechnology key
inventiveness lies in the isolation of the naturally occurring substance from its surrounding since a
particular molecule with particular technical effect

has to be isolated.

She
raised

the issue

of
compatibility of Section 3(j) Patents Act, 1970 with Article 27 of the TRIPS

and the

need to define
which

parts of plants

and animals are hit by Section 3(j) as cells, DNA etc. which are critical for the
develop
ment of biotech products can be considered part of plants and animals.
Many
biotechnological patents also involve

issues of public order and morality which need to be
solved via

a

clear policy on the matter and uniform deci
sion making by the patent offices
.

The presentation
is available
here

Ministry of Human Resource Development Chair on IPR

National Law University, Jodhpur

3


Dr. Malathi
Lakshmikumaran (Director, Lak
shmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys, New Delhi)

&

Mr.
Essenese Obhan (Founding Partner, Obhan
& Associates, New Delhi)
speaking
in the first session

The d
iscussion was carried forward in another brilliant
talk
by
Mr. Essenese Obhan (Founding Partner,
Obhan & Associates, New Delhi)
who presented on ‘Pharma Patents: Procedural Challenges in
Oppositi
on and Revocation Proceedings’. He
discussed
the

controversy surrounding appeal
s

against
pre
-
grant opposition order
s
.

He said that although initially

no appeal was
allowed, now the

position
has changed
. H
owever
,

this right

is restricted to
only the
patent
ee and not
the
opponent. Also, no
counters
-
rejoinders are allowed in opposition proceedings. It has
the
advantage of speeding up the
procedure but it also results in non
-
appraisal of all viewpoints.
Even though
the
Patent
s

Act, 1970
allows opposition (incl
uding subsequent opposition) until the grant of patent,
the
IPAB disallows it.
He was of the view that p
ost
-
grant opposition
may
suffer from inherent bias, since
the
patent has
been granted by the same Controller.
He discussed various problems in the formu
lation of standard
of skills possessed by ‘Person Skilled in the Art’ and remarked that it is uncertain and has resulted in
haphazard judicial decisions. He suggested use of the ‘Windsurfer Test’ for analyzing ‘obviousness’
during revocation proceedings.
O
ther
delegate
s

and
speakers debated whether it is comparable with

the

‘Problem
-
Solution Approach’
, and the
critical

issues
that follow evaluating the inventive concept

Ministry of Human Resource Development Chair on IPR

National Law University, Jodhpur

4


if the test were religiously followed
.

Another problem in revocation proceedings is inde
terminacy
while testing the insufficiency of disclosure in claims.
The presentation is available
here

The third speaker in this session
was
Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan (Associate,

Lushmikumaran & Sridharan
Attorneys, New Delhi)
.
He deliberated upon

a very contemporary
topic:

‘The Enduring Enigma of
Section 3(d): Will the Supreme Court Prune the Evergreen Tree?’
.

He discussed the

issues in

case of
Novartis v. Union of India & Ors.
a
nd emphasized the need to settle
the law
regarding
the
definition of
efficacy, its relation with inventive step, materials required to prove efficacy and other related
aspects.
The
Supreme Court
, in his opinion,

needs to clear

the

position on the scope of
efficacy and
its relationship with bioavailability.
Another lacuna
that
need
s

to

be

fill
ed

is whether

a
free base or

a

derivative

product will be used for testing obviousness. Uncertainty also surrounds
the
evidence
required to prove efficacy and stage of
submission of
this evidence (including subsequent evidence).
He was of the opinion that t
hese issues require
a
clear policy stand and
Novartis
might not be the
t
est

case to do so.
The presentation is available
here


Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan (Associate,
Lushmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys, New Delhi)
.

Ministry of Human Resource Development Chair on IPR

National Law University, Jodhpur

5


This session concluded with presentation by
Mr. Madhukar Sinha (Professor, Centre for WTO Studies,
IIFT, New Delhi)

on ‘Pharmaceu
tical Data Exclusivity and Implications for Genetic Entry’. He
observed that patent holders earn higher margin on the sale of their products by virtue of being

the

biggest seller and buyer in the market. Therefore, price control on patented products
(pharm
aceuticals) would be justifiable

in certain situations
. He also
drew everyone

s attention to the
skewed increase in rate of inflation of drug prices. He discussed two models to solve the problem of
free riding

i.e;
cost sharing and exclusivity. He stated t
hat data exclusivity will be another kind of
monopoly
, which may be

un
desirable

considering the social costs it has
for

the society
.

The

Cost
sharing model, whether
mandatory or voluntary
,

will not be practical due to unavailability of reliable
data and co
st breakup. It will result i
n

the

non
-
equivalent and

inequitable
cost sharing by

generic
companies.
The fact that MNCs have other big markets to recover their cost is important point of
consideration. These are crucial policy decisions and courts might not

be best place
s

to decide these.

In response, speakers were of the opinion tha
t
it was highly inequitable to ask subsequent
entrants
to compensate the originators for their world
-
wide costs in generating the data or to compensate the
originator beyond the
percentage of market share held by these subsequent entrants.


The presentation is available
here



Mr. Madhukar Sinha (Professor, Centre for WTO Studies, IIFT, New Delhi)

Ministry of Human Resource Development Chair on IPR

National Law University, Jodhpur

6



2:00
-

3:15 pm

Session


II: Working Through Remedies and Exceptions to Patent Rights


Chair:
Yogesh Pai,
Asst. Professor of Law &
Coordinator
-

M
inistry of
HRD Chair on IPR,
NLU, Jodhpur

As
fallout

of the
Bayer/NATCO
order of on 9
th

March 2012, the sy
mposium
speakers and
delegates
were eager to
have an “open session”

on India’s first compulsory license (CL)
. The chair
began with
the deliberation on
the general CL framework in the Indian patent law and
the grounds of CL

in the
light of
the recent
Bayer
/
NATCO

decision.
Delegate
s agreed that Section 84 is
a
viable option and
clear policy should be formulated for its utilization.

While many doubts were initially raised
concerning the effectiveness of the CL framework due certain open ended provisions, deleg
ates
generally agreed that the
Bayer/NATCO
decision

was
much

nuanced in its approach
. The
Bayer/NATCO
decision was appreciated
for its

proper judicial de
termination of all the issues and for

consideration

of arguments,
much
unlike administrative order
s pas
sed in other developing countries
who have issued CLs in the recent past.

But the sanctity of 8% rate of profit after tax was
questioned.

Some expressed hope that with the
Bayer/NATCO
decision, many other CLs would
follow in
the area of
o
ncology drugs and
in other therapeutics.

In this regard, some speakers felt that
generic firms should formulate a clear strategic policy and the
Bayer
/NATCO

decision should not
remain an isolated case.

It was also observed that voluntary licenses are issued only in the
anti
cipation of CLs
,

and that the threat of CLs can ensure that the patent holders comply with their
obligations under patent law.

Some speaker delegates discussed the economic aspects of the CL
mechanism, while others noticed an increasing paradigm shift towa
rds the ‘liability rule’ from that of
an ‘exclusivity’ rule, which is a welcome sign considering the possible unequal benefits arising out of
the present patent system
.


Speakers also debated whether ‘working’ necessitates local manufacturing. Delegates di
scussed the
requirement of local manufacturing, which they said could ensure transfer of technology, while
being TRIPs compatible.

Relying

on the WTO panel decision in
Canada
-
Pharmaceuticals
a speaker
argued that local manufacturing as a ground for CL woul
d be compatible with TRIPS since it does
not amount to discrimination, but was a case of valid differentiation based on justified reasons.

One
speaker on the basis of interpretation section 146 of Patent Act, 1970
read
with the appended rules
,

argued that

importation


is sufficient working
.
In response, a

speaker brought out various other
provisions in the Indian patent law which suggests that working was
always
used in the sense of
Ministry of Human Resource Development Chair on IPR

National Law University, Jodhpur

7


excluding

importation


and that the rules could not trump the language of

the Act
.

A
nother

speaker
argued that requirement of ‘working’ in three years after grant
under that Indian law had its basis in
the Paris Convention,
and

that the

working documents of the Paris Convention
clearly imply
that
lack of local manufacturing co
uld be a ground for CL.

He said that TRIPS cannot be interpreted to
freeze the grounds for CL.

Since around 90% of the foreign drug patents are not locally manufactured,
some questioned if local
manufacturing should be a ground at all,

and
if it made a vi
able business proposition

for MNC drug
companies
?

S
ince patent law demands “enablement” in relation to disclos
ure of the patented
invention, a speaker
questioned the validity of
a further requirement of local manuf
acturing as an
additional obligation on th
e patent holder.
In
response
, other speakers mentioned that recent
literature reveals that
patent specifications hide far more that they can actually disclose, and that

enablement
’ in
the disclosure requirement

was
only a theoretical construct. On the iss
ue of business
viability

for MNCs
,
some
speakers were of the view that if the market i
s

too small for the

foreign

patent holder to manufacture, there were generic players wanting to
cater to
the
market needs and
improve consumer access, which actually just
ifies
the existence of CL on grounds of lack of

working

-

in the sense of local manufacturing.
The open session
on India’s first
compulsory license
was a fantastic success since it generated views from different stakeholders on a very contemporary
issue,
and arguably
the most crucial factor
underlying
the future of R&D based global
pharmaceutical industry.

Ministry of Human Resource Development Chair on IPR

National Law University, Jodhpur

8



A student delegate posing a question to the speakers

This
thought
-
provoking discussion

was followed by
another illuminating presentation
by
Prof.
Sham
nad Basheer (Ministry of HRD Chair on IPR, NUJS, Kolkata)
on ‘Pharmaceutical Patent
Enforcement: A Development Perspective’.

He
focused
on civil remedies, especially on injunction
s
.
He pointed out that
the
test for
determining prima facie case for
granting

interim injunction has
kept

altering
. It is inconclusive w
hether it requires merely showing a triable issue or
a strong
probability of winning the case. Proceedings of interim injunction are generally delayed due to
requirement of appreciation of evidenc
e. Therefore,
he

suggested that courts should directly move
to the trials.

He

also mooted

the idea

for a specialized bench. It was countered by other speakers on
the point of lack of judicial aptitude and
resources
/
infrastructure for specialized bench.

Cer
tain
instances of
India’s experiences with

existing speci
al benches and the futility of having
it
were

intensely discussed.

Instead, training of judges

by involving
different stakeholders

was proposed by
other speakers.

The presentation is available
here

Ministry of Human Resource Development Chair on IPR

National Law University, Jodhpur

9



Prof. Shamnad Basheer (Ministry of HRD Chair on IPR, NUJS, Kolkata)

speaking in the second session

3:45
-

5:00 pm

Session
-

III : Trade and
International Intellectual Proper
ty

Chair:

Mr. Madhukar Sinha, Professor, Centre for WTO Studies, IIFT, New Delhi

The third session

commenced with
a
presentation by
Mr. Anand Grover (Senior Advocate, Supreme Court
of India; Director
,
Lawyers Collective and the UN Special Rapporteur to t
he Right to Health)

on the topic of
‘The Emerging Paradigm of Global IP Enforcement in
Free Trade Agreements (
FTAs
)

and TRIPS
-
plus Agreements: Implications for Access to Medicines’.

He observed that affordable medicines are
necessary to secure the right to

health

b
ut FTAs are undermining flexibilities provided under TRIPS.

Many of these agreements include provision of patent linkage which will further delay the entry o
f
generic drugs in the market. Mr. Grover stated that these FTAs

seek to shift burden of
private right
enforcement on state, demand stronger enforcement mechanism and invoke arbitration proceedings
against sovereign governments. It is essential
to build south
-
south road map to avail TRIPS
flexibilities and should include all stakeholders in tr
eaty negotiations.

This session provoked
discussions on
India’s
treaty making

powers

in the international economic law space and raised
Ministry of Human Resource Development Chair on IPR

National Law University, Jodhpur

10


many fundamental issues concerning the compet
ence to the executive to agree
to international
treaties without prior Parl
iamentary approval.

The presentation is available
here


Mr. Anand Grover (Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India; Director
,
Lawyers Collective and the UN Special
Rapporte
ur to the Right to Health)

&
Mr. Shashank P. Kumar (Consultant, New Delhi) speaking in the third
session

on ‘Trade and International Intellectual Property’

Mr. Shashank P. Kumar (Consultant, New Delhi)
presented on ‘
Defining

the Space for Unilateralism

un
der International Intellectual Property Law: The Case of Border Measure
against

Goods in
Transit’
.

Border Measures against goods
-
in
-
transit is still a current issue and is included in many
FTAs.
He narrated
how
the EU
-

Generic seizures case was settled an
d what forms part of the
mutually agreed solution.
However, he warned that

the settlement

ha
s not brought any substantial
difference in the EU practice and that few
drug consignments

were detained by the EU border
authorities even in January 2012

as part o
f in
-
transit seizures
.

Contrastingly, a
s per
the
ECJ
,

an
overt
act of putting products in EU market is necessary to attract border measure
s
. Also,
the
obligation to
cooperate under WTO law discourages unilateralism.
Moreover,
FTAs are not exception to
the
MFN obligation

under Article 4 of the TRIPS.

Counterfeit products are defined according to the

Ministry of Human Resource Development Chair on IPR

National Law University, Jodhpur

11


law of country of Importation. FTAs produce a ‘lasagna effect’ which cannot be justified under
Article XX of GATT and Article 7 of TRIPS.

He argued that these m
easures are not compatible
with WTO and TRIPS. However, considering the recent decision of the ECJ on this issue, he
expressed hope that a remedy within the European domestic legal framework may settle the issue.

Speakers and delegates discussed how EU’s e
ffort to disrupt the supply chain was damaging trade
betwe
en countries.
Delegates emphasized that this

was
despite the

goods having been returned to
Indian exporters
in every cas
e involving in
-
transit seizures since the disruption
of supply chain
can
lead
to
defacto

market access to countries
exercising

such extraterritorial border measures

in the long
run
.

The presentation is available
here

Towards the end of the first day
,

consensus emerged that developing countries today have a better
and nuanced understanding of the TRIPS Agreement

and the FTAs
,

and
with time
this progress is
expected to continue. The

session on trade and international
IP ended

with the apt statement

by M
r.
Anand Grover:
“March Separately
,

but Strike Together
!
”.


18
th

March 2012

Day 2 (Sunday)

9:30
-
11:00 am

Session


IV: Market Environment, Price Regulation and Competition in
the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

Chair:
Prof. Shamnad Basheer, Ministry of H
RD Chair on IPR, NUJS, Kolkata

Mr. Dilip Shah (Secretary General, Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance, Mumbai)

provided

a critique of the
‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy, 2011’.
He stated that t
he object of price control is making
medicines available a
t affordable prices and balancing it with the industry growth.

T
he

Present policy
of cost price fixation system is not
responsive to market changes, since it

suffers from
conceptual
ambiguities and lack of evidence based examination.

He was of the view tha
t t
he

p
olicy

of
price
control

should be based on substantive evidence, validated data and should take into account
profitability of the Industry.

He brought certain important statistics to the table and argued that
information
asymmetry in the prescription

(ethical drugs) market and the involvement of
pharmaceutical companies in providing perverse incentives to doctors was highly exaggerated. He
was of the view that the above factor
was
placed too much weight in
the
current
price control
regime beyond propo
rtion

and
anecdotal

evidence should not be the basis for policy formulation
.
H
e

argued
that if

Indian companies were expected to invest in R&D
in the near future,

Indian
Ministry of Human Resource Development Chair on IPR

National Law University, Jodhpur

12


industry must be ensured a certain rate of profitability and in doing so the indiscrim
inate use of price
control as a policy option might
scuttle Indian efforts in R&D.
Ot
her speakers
generally
agreed that
the industry must be ensured a certain rate of profitability, and that policy making must be
based on
proper evidence of actual costs in
volved. However, many delegates disagreed with the
claim that
doctors were not influenced into
prescribing specific brands and that there was evidence in plenty
concerning such practices.
Delegates argued that the huge difference in the lowest retail price

and
highest retail price in the prescription drug market couldn’t be otherwise explained.


Mr. Dilip Shah (Secretary General, Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance, Mumbai)

speaking in session IV

on the issue
of price controls

Prof. Sudip Chaudhari (IIM, Kolk
ata)
spoke on the ‘Emerging Market Environment in the Indian
Pharmaceutical Sector: Indian Generic Industry in the Post
-
TRIPS World’. According to the
speaker, there has been steep rises in the drug prices after introduction of TRIPS. Indian companies
have

become more export oriented but their aim to encash foreign markets (like US) has not
full
y
materialized. Indian companies have not been able to develop competence to innovate products,
Ministry of Human Resource Development Chair on IPR

National Law University, Jodhpur

13


R&D has diversified and many diseases have remained neglected. To cou
nter these problems user
friendly compulsory licensing system should be developed, price control
for consumer access and to
limit
data protection were suggested. He reiterated that it may be achieved through South
-
South
collaboration. He also emphasized on

the increasing consolidation in the Indian pharmaceutical
industry and its implications in the long run and how
such consolidation between Indian generics
and foreign firms will risk consumer access to low priced drugs.
He called on the industry and the
g
overnment to think in terms of long term survival strategy in a globalised pharmaceutical market.
The presentation is available
here


Prof. Sudip Chaudhari (IIM, Kolkata)
discussing the emerging market environment in the Indian Pharmaceutical
Sector

in session IV

Mr. J. Sai Deepak (Associate, Saikrishna Associates, New Delhi
)

presented on ‘The IP and Competition
Law Interface in the Pharmaceutical Sector’.
The
Speaker note
d that patent pools can attract
Section 3 (3) of Competition Act, 2002. Patent pools can be presumed to have appreciable adverse
effect on the competition. It can be defended by proving non fulfillment of the grounds under
Ministry of Human Resource Development Chair on IPR

National Law University, Jodhpur

14


section 3, no appreciable effect
or no adverse effect. It can also be defended on the basis of proviso
and Section 3(5). Collective bargaining can be used as defence too.
He
suggested parallel imports as
an alternative to compulsory licensing.

His presentation suggested alternatives to th
e compulsory
licensing model to sustain competition between originator drug and generic companies.

Some
delegates questioned the assumption that patents were synonymous to monopoly for the purposes
of competition law since
the legal monopoly is not granted

on existing product/process and that IP
was afforded to new inventions (at least in the theoretical sense). It was questioned if an analysis of
dynamic efficiency would require
patents not to be treated as monopolies. To counter these
arguments, some dele
gates specializing in economics stated that for all economic purposes patents
were monopolies in a market based on free competitio
n and that the legal understanding
differentiating patents and monopoly was artificial.
But the important point was if patents

always
conveyed certain market power.

The presentation is available
here

Mr. J. Sai Deepak (Associate, Saikrishna Associates, New Delhi
)

speaking on IP
-
Competition Law i
nterface in the
pharmaceutical sector.



Ministry of Human Resource Development Chair on IPR

National Law University, Jodhpur

15


11:30
-
12:50 pm

Session


V:

Pharmaceutical Innovation: Intellectual Property and Beyond

Chair:
Mr. Anand Grover (Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India; Director
,
Lawyers
Collective and the UN Special Rapporteur t
o the Right to Health)

This concluding s
ession was initiated by
Prof. Amit Shovon Ray (JNU, New Delhi)
with his presentation
on ‘Attempts for an Indian Bayh Dole and Publicly Funded Pharmaceutical Innovation

. He
emphasized the need of greater a
nd effecti
ve linkage of public

research and pharmaceutical industry.
He was of the view that
Indians still haven’t acquired the competence of conceiving the idea and
taking it to the level of
developing the products

for the market
. Research and Development can be
d
eveloped through entrepreneurship and not merely through trading. In order to push the frontiers
of technology development India has to move beyond
the
repetitive technologies.
He candidly
remarked that
Indian academicians lack the enthusiasm
to

pursu
e

the
ir idea up to stage of product
or prototype development.

Publication
of their
research and patents are not conflicting in nature

and
that they could go hand in hand.
B
ut b
oth academicians and pharmaceutical industry suffer from
cynicism and distrust each o
ther. Delegates from pharmaceutical industry pointed out that

the

Indian
academi
c

institute
s

lack infra
structure

necessary to develop pharmaceuticals. Most of the
participants
concurred on the point

that public

private partnership can be effective in deal
ing with
many R&D problems. But few participants questioned the efficiency of such model.


Prof. Amit Shovon Ray (JNU, New Delhi)

speaking on Indian Bayh Dole and technical capacities of public research
institutes in India

Ministry of Human Resource Development Chair on IPR

National Law University, Jodhpur

16


The s
ession ended with the pre
sentation by
Mr. Santosh M R., (Associate Fellow, Centad, New Delhi)
on
‘IP and Globalization of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry: Emerging Concerns for Innovation
and Access’.

According to the speaker

R&D on

numerous communicable and non
-
communicable
d
iseases are being neglected.
Post 1990, entry and exit of capital
is

unfettered, various M&A have
taken place between generic and MNCs, contract research and manufacturing has increased.
Private
entities have short term goals, dependence

on imports have in
creased and g
eneric industry has
become export centric.

The

Speaker felt the need of more government funding in public health
sector, control on the exit and entry of capital and brownfield investments. Generic industry should
develop more bulk drugs targe
ted towards epidemiological needs of the country.

Participants noted
that neglected diseases can be targeted through alternative models to IP system.

In the event of
failure of the patent system to generate incentives for R&D in neglected diseases, the re
levance and
effectiveness of alternative models to IP system, such as India’s Open Source Drug Discovery
(OSDD) launched by the CSIR

was commendable
.
The
Session ended with an open ended question
whether

the

current
IP
system
prohibit access to medicines a
nd policy
necessity

of thinking beyond
IP if innovation and consumer access were the actual goals to be realized by developing countries
like India.

The presentation is ava
ilable
here

Mr. Santosh M R., (Associate Fellow, Centad, New Delhi
)

speaking

on ‘IP and Globalization of the Indian
Pharmaceutical Industry


Ministry of Human Resource Development Chair on IPR

National Law University, Jodhpur

17


The t
wo day roundtable symposium ended with the vote of thanks by
Mr. Yogesh Pai
,
Coordinator

of
the MHRD IP Chai
r
and presentation of
mementoes
to all the speakers.
As a follow
-
up, he invited
speakers to collaborate for sharing thoughts for collective law and policy making
in the Indian IP
context. He was

hopeful that the brainstorming
held during the two
-
day roundt
able

would be useful
in generating a nuanced view of the subject.

He invited a round of applause for student volunteers
for helping him organize the event. He also thanked the MHRD
-
IP Chair student team and faculty
advisors for making the event possible.
H
e thanked his senior colleagues and administration at NLU,
Jodhpur for
all help. He also thanked the Ministry of Human
Resources

Development
for funding
the event
and the University Grants Commission for
cosponsoring the same.

Credits:
Th
e event was rappo
rteured
by
Monika (IV year)
with
the MHRD IP Chair student team

of
National Law University, Jodhpur.