IB02
Indian Foreign Trade
(For CNM Cases)
Assignment – I
Assignment Code: 2016IB02A1 Last Date of Submission: 30th April 2016
Maximum Marks: 100
Attempt all the questions. All the questions are compulsory and carry equal marks.
Section-A
1. What grounds is the strategy of export-led growth held justified for a developing country? Critically examine its suitability for India.
2. Textile and Clothing sector occupies a pivotal role in the Indian economy .Discuss the constraints recently faced by the Indian exporters while exporting garments to US and European Union.
3. Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of Indian electronics commodities. How can you make them competitive in the global market?
4. a) What are the main issues of international trade in services? What is the role of services
in India's external trade?
b) Briefly discuss the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).
Section-B
Case Study
The Supreme Court judgment of 1st April, 2013 on Glivec is a blow for a patent regime with a higher threshold of inventiveness The Supreme Court upheld the Intellectual Property Appellate Board’s decision to deny patent protection to Novartis’s application covering a beta crystalline form of imatinib —the medicine Novartis brands as Glivec, and which is very effective against the form of cancer known as chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML). The judgment marked a crucial conclusion to a saga that has been several decades in the making. The story could start in 1972, if you like, when the Indian Patents Act of 1970 — grounded in the findings of the Bakshi Tek Chand and Ayyangar Committee Reports — came into force, enabling the explosive growth of the Indian generics industry into the world’s largest exporter of bulk medicines. Or, it could start in 2005, when India amended its patent law to comply with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), a trade rule at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) that established a new global regime of intellectual property.
No matter where we start, the saga has come to a close, and the key lesson seeping through is that good sense won. Firstly, the Supreme Court decision was not about the patentability of the imatinib compound as such: that patent, having been instituted in 1993, is excluded from the purview of the Indian patent system, which is only obligated to consider patents filed in 1995 or after. The case the Supreme Court heard was whether Novartis’ beta crystalline form of imatinib was worthy of patent protection: its judgment was that this modification by Novartis did not satisfy the standard of inventiveness required under Indian patent law. Secondly, Indian patent law is as yet unchallenged at the WTO; Novartis’s earlier challenge to the constitutionality and TRIPs compatibility of Indian patent law was rebuffed by the Madras High Court in 2007 and no appeal was pursued. Thirdly, the Supreme Court judgment effectively recast Indian patent law as being nuanced and original in its meshing of domestic political economy concerns with the integrated global economy it participates in. The outcome of this nuance and originality? Imatinib will continue to be available to patients in India from multiple suppliers at a price 10 times less than the current cost of Glivec; approximately 27,000 cancer patients in the country who pay for their imatinib will continue to have access to the medicine in the public and private sectors at the lowest cost possible; and should Novartis ever suspend its charitable programme, all 15,000 of the cancer patients who currently receive imatinib free from Novartis will have similarly equitable access to the medicine.
Questions:
1. What are the essential requirements to get a product patented according to TRIPS agreement?
2. Do you feel the Judgment of Supreme Court of India will affect the R&D work by Pharma MNC’s in India?
Indian Foreign Trade
(For CNM Cases)
Assignment – I
Assignment Code: 2016IB02A1 Last Date of Submission: 30th April 2016
Maximum Marks: 100
Attempt all the questions. All the questions are compulsory and carry equal marks.
Section-A
1. What grounds is the strategy of export-led growth held justified for a developing country? Critically examine its suitability for India.
2. Textile and Clothing sector occupies a pivotal role in the Indian economy .Discuss the constraints recently faced by the Indian exporters while exporting garments to US and European Union.
3. Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of Indian electronics commodities. How can you make them competitive in the global market?
4. a) What are the main issues of international trade in services? What is the role of services
in India's external trade?
b) Briefly discuss the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).
Section-B
Case Study
The Supreme Court judgment of 1st April, 2013 on Glivec is a blow for a patent regime with a higher threshold of inventiveness The Supreme Court upheld the Intellectual Property Appellate Board’s decision to deny patent protection to Novartis’s application covering a beta crystalline form of imatinib —the medicine Novartis brands as Glivec, and which is very effective against the form of cancer known as chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML). The judgment marked a crucial conclusion to a saga that has been several decades in the making. The story could start in 1972, if you like, when the Indian Patents Act of 1970 — grounded in the findings of the Bakshi Tek Chand and Ayyangar Committee Reports — came into force, enabling the explosive growth of the Indian generics industry into the world’s largest exporter of bulk medicines. Or, it could start in 2005, when India amended its patent law to comply with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), a trade rule at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) that established a new global regime of intellectual property.
No matter where we start, the saga has come to a close, and the key lesson seeping through is that good sense won. Firstly, the Supreme Court decision was not about the patentability of the imatinib compound as such: that patent, having been instituted in 1993, is excluded from the purview of the Indian patent system, which is only obligated to consider patents filed in 1995 or after. The case the Supreme Court heard was whether Novartis’ beta crystalline form of imatinib was worthy of patent protection: its judgment was that this modification by Novartis did not satisfy the standard of inventiveness required under Indian patent law. Secondly, Indian patent law is as yet unchallenged at the WTO; Novartis’s earlier challenge to the constitutionality and TRIPs compatibility of Indian patent law was rebuffed by the Madras High Court in 2007 and no appeal was pursued. Thirdly, the Supreme Court judgment effectively recast Indian patent law as being nuanced and original in its meshing of domestic political economy concerns with the integrated global economy it participates in. The outcome of this nuance and originality? Imatinib will continue to be available to patients in India from multiple suppliers at a price 10 times less than the current cost of Glivec; approximately 27,000 cancer patients in the country who pay for their imatinib will continue to have access to the medicine in the public and private sectors at the lowest cost possible; and should Novartis ever suspend its charitable programme, all 15,000 of the cancer patients who currently receive imatinib free from Novartis will have similarly equitable access to the medicine.
Questions:
1. What are the essential requirements to get a product patented according to TRIPS agreement?
2. Do you feel the Judgment of Supreme Court of India will affect the R&D work by Pharma MNC’s in India?
No comments:
Post a Comment