Call our expert counsellor to get usable advice
Entrance exams, Courses and General Tips
335 Cadets Graduate from NDA
Common Management Admission Test CMAT 2012 Notification
Engineering Admission Insights
Medical colleges can follow COMED-K seat-matrix for PG Courses
NFAI Hikes Research Fellowship
Arts/ Science/ Commerce
Tablet PCs below Rs. 10,000 set to become a reality
IITs are always in news for their brainchild and innovations, but IIT-Kharagpur is in the lime light for its litigation case filed by a U.S. based entrepreneur Mandana D Farhang along with her affiliate MA Mobile Limited. Mandana and MA Mobile have filed a case against IIT Kharagpur (IITKgp) and its affiliate Technology Incubation and Entrepreneurship Training Society (TIETS) for misuse of her invention and trade secrets. The case is filed with the Northern District Court of California.
In terms of the court, Plaintiff Mandana D. Farhang filed her complaint on May 27, 2008 and IITKgp was served with summons on April 8 2009. In August 2009, IITK filed a complaint against Farhang stating that she was using the institute's intellectual property without their permission with the High Court of Calcutta, India. IITKgp now moves to stay until the Indian proceedings are concluded and the determination of the High Court of Calcutta becomes final. Their bases for requesting a stay are the principles of international comity and international abstention. International Comity means in U.S. law that that courts should not act in a way that demeans the jurisdiction, laws, or judicial decisions of another jurisdiction.
In its complaint filed with the High Court at Calcutta, IIT makes the following claims:
It appears that the only action taken by the Indian court thus far has been to issue a preliminary injunction restraining Farhang from utilizing the disputed intellectual property ("IP") without IIT's written consent while the Indian action is pending.
Meanwhile, in the instant action, plaintiffs Farhang and M.A. Mobile Ltd. bring claims against IIT and other defendants for:
Also IITKgp states that M.A. Mobile does not have the rights to file the case under the U.S. court because it has not complied with California Corporations Code Section 2105. Section 2105 requires foreign corporations to obtain a certificate of qualification from the Secretary of State prior to transacting intrastate business in California. M.A. Mobile is a foreign corporation chartered under the laws of the Commonwealth of Dominica.
In her complaint to the U.S. court Mandana mentions that in the year 2003, she and her affiliate had entered into an agreement with the IITKgp on building a prototype for a specific application for the mobile computing technology that was to be used in the Indian Railways. Keeping this in mind, Mandana had shared her invention with IITKgp. She also went ahead and shared the trade secrets with relation to the invention including the marketing and customer information. Further in the complain states that IITKgp has misused the information by sharing it with other 3rd parties like IBM and Indian Railways thus breaching the contract of agreement between them.
Courtesy: Silicon India
An Overview of way2k.com