When a patent has been infringed, there’s usually a price to pay, whether it’s the result of a trial verdict or a negotiated settlement. Even when compensation for patent infringement is a certainty, determining the right amount is a complex matter involving the interplay of many legal and financial variables. Patent Infringement: Compensation and Damages is a complete, concise and detailed guide. It explains each step, from a finding of infringment to a determination of damages. The process starts with determining the damages period and damages base, from both a product and a geographic perspective. Next, the appropriate theory-reasonable royalty or lost profits-is applied. Then enhancements or limitations are considered, as well as the likelihood and effect of an injunction, shows you the method used, the possible variations, the unique patent law doctrines that may apply, and the strategies to consider in seeking terms most advantageous to your client. The book also examines how awards of damages are treated under accounting rules, and discusses the admissibility of evidence from expert witnesses respecting damages. Patent Infringement: Compensation and Damages equips you with legal and practical insights that will keep you one step ahead of opposing counsel. Don’t try or settle another case without it.
Tag Archives: Patent Law India
Patent not working in India
A patent that has not been worked for three years from its grant is vulnerable to issuance of a compulsory license. Any interested party which has been unsuccessful in procuring a voluntary license from the patentee can file an application with the Controller requesting for a compulsory license after expiry of three years from grant of the patent. Such person needs to establish the occurrence of any of the three conditions mentioned in Section 84of the Act. One such condition is that the patent should have ‘not worked in the territory of India’. If the Controller is satisfied, he may grant the applicant a non-exclusive compulsory license for the balance term of the patent, unless a shorter term is consistent with public interest. The patent can subsequently be revoked after the expiration of two years from the grant of the compulsory license on application by any third party or the Government if it is established that the compulsorily licensed patent has not satisfied the purpose for which it was granted. Information contained in Form 27 filed, would be available to such applicant seeking a compulsory license to establish the non-working of the patent. There is no provision for suo motu revocation by Controller. Neither is ‘non-working’ a ground for revocation of a patent by a person interested under Section 64 of the Act. Therefore, non-working would not directly lead to revocation of patent.
Not Patentable Invention India
There are some products and processes, which are not patentable in India They are classified into two categories in the patent act
a) Those which are not inventions (S.3)
b) Invention relating to atomic Energy (S.4)
Various types of non-patentable inventions under Section 3 are as follows-
3(a) An invention which is frivolous or which claims anything obvious contrary to well established natural laws.
Merely making in one piece, articles, previously made in two or more pieces is frivolous. Mere usefulness is not sufficient (Indian vacuum brake co. ltd vs. Laurd (AUR 1962 CAK 152).
Perpetual motion machine alleged to be giving output without any input is not patentable as it is contrary to natural law.
3(b) An invention the primary or intended use or commercial exploitation of which could be contrary to public order or morality or which causes serious prejudice to human, animal or plant life or health or to the environment
3(c) The mere discovery of a scientific principle or the formulation of an abstract theory or discovery of any living thing or non-living substances occurring in nature;
3(d) The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.
Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size, isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.
[Note: Before amendment of Section 3 (d) by the Patents (Amendments) Ordinance 2004 it reads as “mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus…”The insertion of the word “mere” before ‘new use for a known substance’ in this clause by the Patents (Amendment) Ordinance 2004, is for the purpose of drafting clarity only as without it the sub-section would have remained ambiguous. This does not restrict the nonpatentability and give rise to ambiguity and possible misuse. There is no need of giving wider meaning to it.]
3(e) A substance obtained by a mere admixture resulting only in the aggregation of the properties of the components thereof or a process for producing such substance:
3(f) The mere arrangement or re-arrangement or duplication of known devices each functioning independently of one another in a known way.
3(h) A method of agriculture or horticulture.
(i) A method of producing a new form of a known plant even if it involved a modification of the conditions under which natural phenomena would pursue their inevitable course is not patentable. (N.V. Philips Gloeiammpenfabrieken’s Application 71 RFC 192).
3(i) Any process for the medicinal, surgical, curative, prophylactic diagnostic therapeutic or other treatment of human being or any process for a similar treatment of animals to render them free of disease or to increase their economic value or that of their products.
Plants and animals in whole or any part thereof other than microorganisms but including seeds, varieties and species and essentially biological processes for production or propagation of plants and animals;
Example: Clones and new variety of plants are not patentable. But process / method of preparing Genetically Modified Organisms are patentable subject matter.
3(m) A mere scheme or rule or method of performing mental act or method of playing game;
3(n) A presentation of information
3(o) Topography of integrated circuits;
INVENTIONS RELATING TO ATOMIC ENERGY (S.4)
“No Patent shall be granted in respect of an invention relating to atomic energy falling within subsection (1) of section 20 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962
Patent Examination law India
Request for Examination
The process of examination starts with a request for examination. The request has to be made within 36 months from the date of priority or filing. However, if secrecy directions have been given for the application, the request can be made six months after the directions are revoked or thirty six months from the date of priority or filing, if that date is later.
Examination
On receiving the request, the controller shall direct the patent application to the Examiner for examination. To start with, the examiner makes a formal examination by verifying the propriety and correctness of all documents filed with the application. Later, he verifies the patentability of the application. The patentability analysis includes all patentability requirements.
After confirming that the application falls within the scope of patentable subject matter, the examiner conducts a prior art search to check if there is prior art, which anticipates the invention claimed. Prior art search for anticipation includes search for anticipation by publication, filing of complete specification, etc. He then verifies the existence of inventive step, Industrial application, and Enablement and Best mode.
The examiner will give the examination report within 1 month from the date of reference by controller and that term shall not exceed three months. If the examination report is adverse, the controller sends a notice to the applicant and gives him an opportunity to correct and if necessary an opportunity of hearing. The Controller might ask the applicant to amend the application in order to proceed further. If the applicant does not make such changes, the application might be rejected.
The Controller has the power to divide the application, post date the application, substitute applicants and reject the application. An order of division will be given if the application contains more than one invention and if it is required to file separate applications for each invention. The application might be post dated to a period of six months if requested by the applicant. Substitution of inventors is generally done if the inventor has been wrongfully mentioned or if a joint inventor has not been mentioned in the application.
The controller has the power to reject the application, if the applicant does not comply with his requirements.
Patent law India
Patent law has been formulated with an objective to promote and protect the inventions and methods. The object of granting a patent is to encourage and develop science, technology and industry. A patent can be defined as a grant of exclusive rights to an inventor over his invention for a limited period of time. The exclusive rights conferred include the right to make, use, exercise, sell or distribute the invention in India. The term of a patent is twenty years, after the expiry of which, the invention would fall into the public domain.
In 1957, Govt. of India appointed Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar examine and review the Patent law in India who submitted his report September 1959 recommending the retention of Patent System despite shortcomings. The Patent Bill, 1965 based mainly on his recommendations incorporating a few changes, in particular relating to Patents for food, drug, medicines, was introduced in the lower house of Parliament on 21st September, 1965. The bill was passed by the Parliament and the Patents Act 1970 came into force on 20th April 1972 along with Patent Rules 1972. This law was suited changed political situation and economic needs for providing impetus technological development by promoting inventive activities in the country.
Uruguay round of GATT negotiations paved the way for WTO. Therefore India was put under the contractual obligation to amend its patents act in compliance with the provisions of TRIPS. India had to meet the first set of requirements on 1- 1-1995. This was to give a pipeline protection till the country starts giving product patent. It came to force on 26th March 1999 retrospective from 1-1-1995. It lays down the provisions for filing of application for product patent in the field of drugs or medicines with effect from 01.01.1995 and grant of Exclusive Marketing Rights on those products.
India amended its Patents Act again in 2002 to meet with the second set of obligations (Term of Patent etc.), which had to be effected from 1-1-2000. This amendment, which provides for 20 years term for the patent, Reversal of burden of proof etc. came into force on 20th May, 2003. The Third Amendment of the Patents Act 1970, by way of the Patents (Amendment) Ordinance 2004 came into force on 1st January, 2005 incorporating the provisions for granting product patent in all fields of Technology including chemicals, food, drugs & agrochemicals and this Ordinance is replaced by the Patents (Amendment) Act 2005 which is in force now having effect from 1-1-2005 .
Click here to read complete article Patent law India
