India Patent Highlights of 2014

The yr 2014 turned many of our set up patent concepts on their head and unlike preceding years a few amazing judgments got here from High Courts around the country now not just from Delhi. In the start of the 12 months, we had Judge Ramasubramaniam, defining various provisions of the Indian Patents Act and laying down concepts on how a patent trial have to be carried out and what evidence is required for a patentee in a Patent infringement in shape to establish infringement of a patent. Not many human beings realized, even in the criminal fraternity, that this turned into a judgment after complete trial in a match for patent infringement. The Madras judgment become observed by using the selection inside the writ petition filed via Teijin Ltd inside the Mumbai High Court which dealt with renewals in respect of patents which recommended the energy of the Controller of Patents to treatment a clerical errors dedicated for the duration of prosecution beneath section 129 and 137 of the Act. From Mumbai, the scene shifted back to Chennai. In the NTT DoCoMo Inc. Case in which Justice Raja echoed the concepts laid down in the Teijin case. In April 2014, Justice Manmohan Singh of the Delhi High Court had an occasion to decide upon the maintainability of a healthy under the Patents Act whilst there have been alleged discrepancies in the Recordal of an one of a kind license settlement in favour of the plaintiff. Justice Manmohan Singh refused to push aside the in shape with out of entirety of the Recordal court cases. In a further judgment, thereafter, in an enchantment filed through 3M towards Venus Safety Justice Manmohan Singh whilst refusing to supply an injunction to the plaintiff held that “A moderate trivial or infinitesimal version from a pre-present invention would no longer qualify to be a legitimate invention”. Once once more in Sandeep Jaidka vs. Mukesh Mittal, Justice Manmohan Singh refused to furnish an intervening time injunction in appreciate of patent infringement where admittedly the plaintiff became not operating the patent.

June saw the Supreme Court finding out as soon as and for all in Aloys Wobben vs. Yogesh Mehra that a defendant in a patent infringement healthy could simplest use one of the treatments available beneath the Patents Act to attack the validity of a patent. These remedies encompass filing a post provide opposition beneath Section 25, a revocation action underneath Section sixty four and a counter declare for revocation in a healthy for infringement. However, inadvertently, the Supreme Court additionally decreased the useful existence of a granted patent by one entire year while it said that an infringement movement can’t be initiated within the first 12 months, whilst a patent turned into still open to venture underneath a submit supply competition. In July, the scene moved again to Mumbai in which inside the Bayer Corporation case, Justices Shah and Sanklecha upheld the Controller of Patents order and the IPAB order in the Bayer vs. Natco Saga for the compulsory license in recognize of the most cancers drug popularly referred to as Nexavar. An important aspect locating changed into that it became now not obligatory for establishing running in India that a patented drug needed to be manufactured in India. Bayer appealed from this judgment to the Supreme Court but on the stop of the year the compulsory license granted in favour of Natco became not disturbed. It seems that what swayed every of the adjudicators in opposition to Bayer became Bayer’s refusal to offer information of R&D fees incurred that had been asked for by way of the Courts and its apathy closer to promoting the product in India.

Some vital issues in qualifying who may be taken into consideration as an expert in leading evidence in patent suits changed into discussed in instances inside the year. In the primary case, Vringo vs. IndiaMart, Justice Shaliof the Delhi High Court mentioned that a witness who isn’t an Indian Patent Agent cannot be taken into consideration as an expert to present an opinion whether an Indian Patent is infringed in India. Further, a self favouring admission by using the plaintiff can’t be taken into consideration applicable under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. To be considered as an professional, Justice Shali shows situations. Firstly, the expert ought to have as a minimum a primary diploma within the field and similarly should have a few studies work carried out by using him in that place. A generalist ‘can’t be considered as an professional in that subject’. Further, Justice Shali equated the qualifications of an expert in a area to be commensurate with the qualifications for a scientific marketing consultant as furnished in Rule 103 of the Patents Rule.The 2d case on the situation became decided in Calcutta, later, inside the yr in November;Justice Mukerji in Rajesh Kumar Banka vs. Union of India gave an opinion on the characteristics of an expert witness. The expert witness in this situation, relating to a plastic sealing device, changed into a B.Tech in polymer technology. Justice Mukerji got here to the realization that in these topics Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act pointed within the proper path and such a person ought to be mainly skilled in the subject and that this kind of witness’s testimony is continually open to go examination. There became a similarly ratio that a Court should now not grow to be an expert wherein it has no competence. In the case of Salzer Electronics limited vs. SG controls, the Appellate Bench of the Madras High Court become required to deal with the decrease Courts order refusing an interim injunction.The bench even as placing aside the lower Courts order said that an order disregarding an interim injunction need to be a reasoned order without expressing any opinion on deserves and must keep in mind all of the details and statistics. The order have to give adequate motives for refusing an intervening time injunction.

As in earlier years, pharmaceutical patents have been also the subject of patent disputes. There turned into a judgement in Novartis vs. Ranbaxy in appreciate of Vida Gliptin wherein Ranbaxy changed into quickly constrained. The Single Judges Order was appealed towards and the enchantment bench’s order confirmed the interim injunction. Merck Serono succeeded in overturning the abandonment order of the Controller of Patents and in the attraction filed by way of Bristol-Myers vs. Mylan Labs in appreciate of the drug Atazanavir, Mylan Labs become permitted to export the drug to Venezuela however become asked to preserve accounts and deposit five% of the revenue it acquired in Court till the disposal of the suit. At the stop of the yr, in the Gharda Chemicals Limited case, the Bombay High Court dropped a bomb shell whilst it stated that employees’ inventions do not mechanically belong to the agency.

Founded inside the 12 months 1942, R.K.Dewan & Co. Has been a outstanding participant in offering services associated with intellectual belongings rights, patent search, trademark seek and registration considering the fact that inception. Offering customized, cost-effective and innovative offerings across all verticals of emblems and patents has been their distinctiveness.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *