EU welcomed online transaction dispute resolution
Immediately after the survey conducted by the WIPO on Dispute resolution in technology which revealed that only less than 2% of technology agreements leads to formal dispute proceedings, EU had voted in favour of a bill to launch online dispute resolution with the same power and width of offline litigation. It facilitates e-submission, to receive and transmit information electronically and also allow the parties to conduct the dispute resolution through the same policy.
India's first compulsory license granted to pharmaceutical company, Bayer
In consonance with section 84 of Indian Patent Act, in the case of Bayer v. NAPCO, order has been granted asking Bayer to price the drug reasonably. The cancer drug is found to be accessed only by 2% of patient population because of immense pricing. The issuance of the order was just before PH Kurien handed over his charge to new Controller General Chaithanya Prasad.
Local Economic Development countries seek extension for transition in TRIPPS compliance
East African countries are trying to lobby and extension for a transition period beyond July 2013 to become TRIPPS compliant. But it created disinclination towards the move as they feel the blanket period would not be appropriate. Despite being a fast developing country with a fair pace in technological front India is struggling with product patent regime enforced by TRIPPS. So the problems with least developed countries in Africa would be dismal.
The amendments to the existing provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 and introduction of new provisions under the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012
The new rules provide statutory framework for technological protection and artistic work which can be even unpublished. Adapting work by organization for differently abled persons is another specifically mentioned category apart from compulsory license for works withheld from public.
Strict action against fraudulent companies
Companies floating with fraudulent investment deposits mobilizing schemes (also called 'ponzi schemes') have been categorized to be liable for action under the following laws: (i) The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 administered by Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services) through the State Governments; and (ii)Section 11AA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Act, 1992 where such schemes are in violation of Collective Investment Schemes regulated by SEBI. Giving this information in written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha, Shri Sachin Pilot, Minister of Corporate Affairs, said that the following actions have been initiated: (i) Minister of Corporate Affairs has requested State Chief Ministers to issue instructions to State Police Authority for vigorous action under Prize Chits Act. The Minister has also written to the Finance Minister to increase the surveillance by RBI over unauthorized NBFCs. (ii) Model rules under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 have been sent by the Ministry of Finance to State Governments for notification. This will enable initiation of action for ponzi schemes. (iii) Stepped up surveillance by SEBI. (iv) Campaigns by Ministry of Corporate Affairs, RBI and SEBI through advertisements and Investors Awareness Programmes. (v) Investigation/Inspection in respect of 87 companies against whom complaints in such cases have been received. (vi) The Market Research and Analysis Unit is in place in the Serious Fraud Investigation Office of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs for capacity building, coordination with other investigating agencies and for market surveillance.
Action on Anti-competitive Agreements by the competition commission of India
During the last three years, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has passed Cease and Desist Orders in 14 cases and for another 14 cases of anti-competitive agreements with a penalty of Rs.7,354.11 crore in. Shri Sachin Pilot, Minister of Corporate Affairs, as a reply to the question with regard to this has said that the parties against whom such Orders were passed belonged to the following States: Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal.