Skip to main content

What is Patent Infringement?-by Vedant Karia at LexCliq

 What is Patent Infringement?-by Vedant Karia at LexCliq

A patent is a legal document that defines and grants the bearer exclusive rights to produce, sell, or distribute an invention. Patent infringement is the act of violating the patent holder's exclusive rights. The government grants a patent for a limited time. If the patentee's rights are exercised by someone else without the patentee's consent, it is a patent infringement and the person is held liable. Patent infringement is covered by sections 104-114 of the Patents Act 1970.

The Patents Act, 1970, was the primary enactment governing patent infringements in India when it was enacted in 1972. It rendered pharmaceutical, food, and agrochemical advances unpatentable in India. It permitted the copying and sale of ideas patented elsewhere in the world in India. Additionally, this act imposed import limitations on the completed formula and established rigorous pricing control measures. However, this act harmed foreign investment in the country by failing to benefit large international multinational firms and violating the worldwide patent system.


India joined the WTO in 1992, and as a result, it became necessary to change the existing law to comply with the TRIPS agreement's provisions. To comply with the TRIPS agreement, it was critical to implement Exclusive Marketing Rights and a mailbox system. Under the EMR, a foreign business would be granted exclusive rights to commercialize a pharmaceutical or agricultural product in India for a predetermined period of five years. The mailbox system would receive all patent applications for medicinal and agricultural items. To bring these provisions into effect in the 1970 Patents Act, modifications to the Act were introduced in 1999, 2001, 2001, and 2005.


These measures, however, were insufficient to bring the Indian Patents Act into compliance with the Global Patents Act. As a result, a significant change known as the Patents Amendment Act was passed in 2005. The following sections summarise the amendment act's principal provisions.

The 1970 Patents Act permits the patentee to sue for infringement of his exclusive patent rights. The limitation term under the Limitation Act is three years from the date of infringement of the patent rights. Generally, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish that the defendant committed the patent infringement, but in some instances, the court may determine the burden of proof. In India, both district courts and high courts have the authority to consider patent infringement complaints. However, if the defendant files a counterclaim for cancellation of the patent, only the High Court has jurisdiction to consider the matter. The patentee may file his complaint in the county in which he resides, in the county in which he conducts business, or in the county in which the cause of action arises. Patentees' rights are defined in Section 48 of the Indian Patents Act.



It list down the following activities as the infringement of the patentee’s rights:

  • Using

  • Making

  • Importing

  • Offering for sale

  • Selling the patented process


If the defendant commits any of the aforementioned behaviors, he will be held accountable for patent infringement. Section 108(1) of the 1970 Patents Act allows for the plaintiff's relief in the event that his patent rights have been breached.


The remedies available to the patentee are:

  • Temporary/Interlocutory Injunction

  • Permanent injunction

  • Damages


Patent infringement not only harms the inventor/interests of the patentee but also discourages further inventions. This is why patent laws were created to protect patent rights. However, changing times and needs necessitate revisiting patent laws and giving inventors more protection for their inventions. Achieving judicial interpretations of various patent laws is critical for both the patentee and the general public. Finally, the government's role in protecting optimum interests and helping to promote new inventions is critical.

Vedant Karia
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more