<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>PILMAN &#187; infringement</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tapanray.in/tag/infringement/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tapanray.in</link>
	<description>A Tapan Ray Website</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2026 10:59:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Patent Conundrum: Ignoring India Will Just Not be Foolhardy, Not An Option Either</title>
		<link>http://www.tapanray.in/patent-conundrum-ignoring-india-will-just-not-be-foolhardy-not-an-option-either/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=patent-conundrum-ignoring-india-will-just-not-be-foolhardy-not-an-option-either</link>
		<comments>http://www.tapanray.in/patent-conundrum-ignoring-india-will-just-not-be-foolhardy-not-an-option-either/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tapan Ray</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[andrew]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assessment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bayer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CEO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conundrum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[core]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[direct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Enticing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[equity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FDI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foolhardy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glivec]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Grant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GSK]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HTA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lamy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[launch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[local]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lucrative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[manufacturing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nexavar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Novartis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OECD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[option]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pascal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pharmaceutical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PIL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pre]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PwC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R&D]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ray]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tapan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transfer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TRIPS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[witty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tapanray.in/?p=2267</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The recent verdict of the Supreme Court against Novartis, upholding the decision of the Indian Patent Office (IPO) against grant of patent to their cancer drug Glivec, based on Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, has caused a flutter &#8230; <a href="http://www.tapanray.in/patent-conundrum-ignoring-india-will-just-not-be-foolhardy-not-an-option-either/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tapanray.in/patent-conundrum-ignoring-india-will-just-not-be-foolhardy-not-an-option-either/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Does China provide a more robust IPR environment than India?</title>
		<link>http://www.tapanray.in/does-china-provide-a-more-robust-ipr-environment-than-india/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=does-china-provide-a-more-robust-ipr-environment-than-india</link>
		<comments>http://www.tapanray.in/does-china-provide-a-more-robust-ipr-environment-than-india/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2010 01:00:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tapan Ray</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[a]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dispute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Does]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[India]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[linkage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[more]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[provide]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ray]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RDP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tapan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[than]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tapanray.in/index.php/?p=351</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Soon after the Product Patent Act was reintroduced in India effective January 1, 2005, a raging global debate commenced focusing on the robustness of the Indian Patent system. Quite often, many participants in the debate continue to compare the adequacies &#8230; <a href="http://www.tapanray.in/does-china-provide-a-more-robust-ipr-environment-than-india/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tapanray.in/does-china-provide-a-more-robust-ipr-environment-than-india/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>George Washington University Law School&#8217;s &#8220;The India Project&#8221; &#8211; Arguments and Counter Arguments</title>
		<link>http://www.tapanray.in/george-washington-university-law-schools-the-india-project-arguments-and-counter-arguments/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=george-washington-university-law-schools-the-india-project-arguments-and-counter-arguments</link>
		<comments>http://www.tapanray.in/george-washington-university-law-schools-the-india-project-arguments-and-counter-arguments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:30:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tapan Ray</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[and]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CII]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[counter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[India]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judiciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceuticals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ray]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[School]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tapan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[University]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tapanray.in/index.php/?p=418</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recently we witnessed yet another huge controversy on the &#8216;IP Summit&#8217; organized by the George Washington University Law School (GWULS), USA. It was alleged that this summit supported by law firms, some pharmaceutical companies and others, was intended to influence &#8230; <a href="http://www.tapanray.in/george-washington-university-law-schools-the-india-project-arguments-and-counter-arguments/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tapanray.in/george-washington-university-law-schools-the-india-project-arguments-and-counter-arguments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>India and China&#8230;Practical relevance of &#8216;Priority Watch List (PWL)&#8217; status in ‘Special 301 Reports’ of America&#8230;and the REAL ‘Game Changers’</title>
		<link>http://www.tapanray.in/india-and-china-practical-relevance-of-priority-watch-list-pwl-status-in-special-301-reports-of-america-and-the-real-game-changers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=india-and-china-practical-relevance-of-priority-watch-list-pwl-status-in-special-301-reports-of-america-and-the-real-game-changers</link>
		<comments>http://www.tapanray.in/india-and-china-practical-relevance-of-priority-watch-list-pwl-status-in-special-301-reports-of-america-and-the-real-game-changers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 00:30:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tapan Ray</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[301]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Changers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Game]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[in]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[India]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[List]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[of]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceuticals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[practical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Priority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PWL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ray]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RDP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[REAL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Relevance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[status]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tapan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Watch]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tapanray.in/index.php/?p=430</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many stakeholders around the world believe that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) environment in China is far better than what we have in India. Interestingly “2010 Special 301 Report” of the United States of America dated April 30, 2010, paints a &#8230; <a href="http://www.tapanray.in/india-and-china-practical-relevance-of-priority-watch-list-pwl-status-in-special-301-reports-of-america-and-the-real-game-changers/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tapanray.in/india-and-china-practical-relevance-of-priority-watch-list-pwl-status-in-special-301-reports-of-america-and-the-real-game-changers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Regulatory Data Protection and Indian Interest</title>
		<link>http://www.tapanray.in/regulatory-data-protection-and-indian-interest/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=regulatory-data-protection-and-indian-interest</link>
		<comments>http://www.tapanray.in/regulatory-data-protection-and-indian-interest/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:30:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tapan Ray</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2005]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[and]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cosmetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Exclusivity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceuticals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ray]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RDP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secret]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tapan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tapanray.in/index.php/?p=694</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Of late, I read and hear raging debates, especially through media, on the relevance of Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) or Data Exclusivity in India. This issue is being considered by many as a fight between the commercial interests of multinational &#8230; <a href="http://www.tapanray.in/regulatory-data-protection-and-indian-interest/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tapanray.in/regulatory-data-protection-and-indian-interest/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>On ‘Patent Linkage’ – a rational argument on an emotive debate</title>
		<link>http://www.tapanray.in/on-patent-linkage-a-rational-argument-on-an-emotive-debate/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=on-patent-linkage-a-rational-argument-on-an-emotive-debate</link>
		<comments>http://www.tapanray.in/on-patent-linkage-a-rational-argument-on-an-emotive-debate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2009 09:30:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tapan Ray</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[a]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[an]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[argument]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emotive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[linkage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[on]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceuticals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R&D]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rational]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ray]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tapan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tapanray.in/index.php/?p=956</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WTO TRIPS Article 28.1a says that the member countries agree to ensure exclusive rights to patent holder for a specific time period. In case of India, like most other countries, this time period is for 20 years.During this period the &#8230; <a href="http://www.tapanray.in/on-patent-linkage-a-rational-argument-on-an-emotive-debate/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tapanray.in/on-patent-linkage-a-rational-argument-on-an-emotive-debate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
