Reflections on the Indian Accession to the Madrid Protocol

111-117Today’s globalized economy has placed much significance on the internationalization and harmonization of trademark laws. The Madrid System for the international registration of trademarks was one such effort created to allow companies to register their trademark in several countries through one application. Though not a party to the original Madrid Agreement, India recently acceded to the Madrid Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning International Registration of Marks. This article traces the evolution of this Madrid System and provides a critique of the Madrid Protocol. Besides analysing the criticisms of the Madrid Agreement, the author also critically analyses the advantages and developments of the Madrid Protocol over the Madrid Agreement

Methodology of Claim Construction after Phillips v AWH Corp: The Need for an Alternative Approach

28-45Patents are considered as one of the most important and critical intellectual properties. This is so not just because patents serve to develop scientific temper and thereby result in scientific progress, which is very critical for any civilization to develop. This is also because, economically, patents are the most reaping. The emergence of the TRIPS regime has only served to underscore its significance. Given that patents are of much significance, patent claims, which define the area of the patentee’s monopoly – play the most important role. Despite their significance, the author feels that patent claims have not received as much importance as they deserve. This is especially so with reference to principles of claim construction. World over, courts and patent offices seem to be meandering and wavering in their approaches towards claim construction and the USA is no exception. This article attempts to critically analyse the recent en banc decision of the Federal Circuit in Phillips v AWH Corp and trace the evolution of principles of claim construction as applied in the USA. The implications, ramifications and faults with the approach in the Phillips case are observed and the author has proposed an alternative approach to construe and interpret claims