The Innovation Brief
Write for us

Puzzles

TIB Quiz

No. 1 · 10 questions

A pilot edition. The Editorial Board is still checking it.

  1. In Novartis AG v Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court refused a patent for a new form of which cancer drug?

    1. Glivec (imatinib mesylate)
    2. Nexavar (sorafenib)
    3. Herceptin (trastuzumab)
    4. Tarceva (erlotinib)
    Answer

    A. Glivec (imatinib mesylate) Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 bars patents on new forms of known substances unless they show enhanced therapeutic efficacy. The Court held that the beta-crystalline form of imatinib mesylate did not.

    Novartis AG v Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 1

  2. India’s first compulsory licence for a patented medicine, granted in 2012, covered which drug?

    1. Glivec
    2. Nexavar (sorafenib tosylate)
    3. Sutent
    4. Truvada
    Answer

    B. Nexavar (sorafenib tosylate) The Controller of Patents granted Natco Pharma a licence under section 84 to make Bayer’s kidney and liver cancer drug, finding it was not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price.

    Natco Pharma v Bayer Corporation (Controller of Patents, 9 March 2012)

  3. According to Athenaeus, what did a cook in ancient Sybaris gain by inventing a new dish?

    1. The sole right to prepare it for a year
    2. A seat on the city’s council
    3. Freedom from taxes for a year
    4. His name carved in the theatre
    Answer

    A. The sole right to prepare it for a year Athenaeus, quoting the historian Phylarchus, records the rule, which historians of intellectual property often cite as the first patent. The Brief’s emblem is drawn from the theatre at Sybaris.

    About the Brief

  4. In Divya Pharmacy v Union of India (2018), the Uttarakhand High Court held that Indian companies using biological resources must:

    1. Seek the National Biodiversity Authority’s approval before any research
    2. Share benefits fairly, as the State Biodiversity Board demands
    3. Pay a royalty to the Ministry of AYUSH
    4. Register as foreign entities
    Answer

    B. Share benefits fairly, as the State Biodiversity Board demands Reading section 7 with sections 21 and 23 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, the Court held that State Biodiversity Boards may demand fair and equitable benefit sharing from Indian entities too, not only foreign ones.

    Access and Benefit Sharing for domestic entities, by Apoorv Kumar Chaudhary

  5. In 2019 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal in Meru Travel Solutions v CCI. Whom had Meru accused of predatory, below-cost pricing?

    1. Ola
    2. Rapido
    3. Uber
    4. Zoomcar
    Answer

    C. Uber The Commission had dismissed Meru’s information, finding Uber was not dominant. The appellate tribunal ordered an investigation, and the Supreme Court let that order stand.

    Has the Supreme Court Changed Below-Cost Pricing to Predatory Pricing?, by Soham Goswami

  6. In Sanjay Kumar Gupta v Sony Pictures, why did the Delhi High Court refuse copyright to a concept note for a television show?

    1. It had never been published
    2. It was a mere idea, not the expression of one
    3. It had more than one author
    4. It was too short to be a literary work
    Answer

    B. It was a mere idea, not the expression of one Copyright protects expression, not ideas. The ruling sits uneasily with the same court’s earlier decision in Anil Gupta v Kunal Dasgupta.

    Sanjay Kumar Gupta and Another v Sony Pictures, by Apoorv Kumar Chaudhary

  7. According to Navigators Logistics v Kashif Qureshi, copyright cannot subsist in a compilation without:

    1. Registration with the Copyright Office
    2. Authorship by a natural person who applied skill and judgment
    3. Publication in India
    4. A copyright notice
    Answer

    B. Authorship by a natural person who applied skill and judgment The Delhi High Court’s reasoning leaves machine-assembled databases with little protection in a country that has no separate right for non-original databases.

    Navigators Logistics Ltd v Kashif Qureshi and Ors, by Pragya Chaturvedi

  8. What does a ‘dynamic’ injunction let a rights holder block without filing a fresh suit?

    1. Any website that mentions the work
    2. Search results for the work’s title
    3. Mirror and redirect versions of a site already found to infringe
    4. Every website hosted abroad
    Answer

    C. Mirror and redirect versions of a site already found to infringe Blocked sites reappear under new addresses. Courts have allowed orders to be extended to their mirrors, redirects and alphanumeric variants, ending the game of whack-a-mole.

    Dynamic Injunctions, by Tarang Arora

  9. Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 punishes knowing infringement with imprisonment of:

    1. Up to one year
    2. Six months to three years
    3. One to five years
    4. Up to seven years
    Answer

    B. Six months to three years It also carries a fine of fifty thousand to two lakh rupees, and it reaches non-commercial infringement too, which the piece argues cannot be justified.

    Moral-Economic Deficiency of Criminal Copyright Remedies, by Prachi Mathur

  10. Which Competition Commission case led to the Delhi High Court’s 2019 ruling on the Commission’s constitutionality in Mahindra Electric Mobility v CCI?

    1. The Spare Parts case against car makers
    2. Google’s search bias case
    3. The cement cartel
    4. Meru v Uber
    Answer

    A. The Spare Parts case against car makers The Commission had fined car companies about 2,544 crore rupees, and about twelve of them challenged the Competition Act itself. The Court rejected most of the challenges, but directed that no member may join or leave a case during final arguments.

    What is the CCI’s Real Role?, by Soham Goswami