Patent Revocation | Intellepedia

Revocation is Distinct from Invalidity Defence and Survives Patent Expiry, rules Delhi High Court

Gavel, law books, and justice scale beside the text "Revocation Is Distinct from Invalidity Defence and Survives Patent Expiry, Rules Delhi High Court" on a dark blue background.

The Delhi High Court held that a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act is distinct from an invalidity defence under Section 107 and remains valid post-patent expiry. The Court emphasized the broader legal impact of revocation, affirming its maintainability even when the patent has lapsed.

Madras High Court Upholds Patent Validity in Embio Limited vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals

The Madras High Court affirmed the validity of Malladi Drugs’ patent for chiral beta-amino alcohols, highlighting the invention’s novelty and inventive step. The judgment clarifies key principles on patent revocation and the definition of a “person interested” under Indian patent law.

Sufficiency of Disclosure – Ericsson vs Lava – Part X

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Ericsson vs Lava addresses sufficiency of disclosure under the Patents Act. The Court found Ericsson’s patents to be sufficiently disclosed, rejecting Lava’s revocation claims.

Justice Pratibha Singh clarifies the jurisdiction of High Courts over Patent Revocations and Appeals

Justice Pratibha Singh has clarified the jurisdiction of High Courts regarding patent appeals, revocations, and writ petitions. Her judgment in Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited vs. The Controller of Patents & Ors. provides structured guidance on the appropriate forums for each type of patent proceeding under Indian law.

Vitiation of IPAB and Beyond – Changes to the Indian Patents Act

The abolition of the IPAB has shifted appellate and adjudicatory functions under the Indian Patents Act to the High Courts. This post analyses the significant legal changes, outlining the expanded role of Indian High Courts in patent matters after the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance 2021.

Foreign Filing Intimation to Indian Patent Office

This post examines the obligation for Indian patent applicants to disclose foreign filings under section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970. It analyses recent case law and stresses the importance of timely compliance to avoid patent revocation.

The Chemtura Case – Assent from US’ BPAI, but Dissent from India’s IPAB

The Chemtura case highlights IPAB’s approach to inventive step and patent revocation in contrast with the US BPAI’s grant. The decision underscores the significance of precise drafting and timely disclosure under Indian patent law.

Crossing the Rubicon: A Fork in the Road – Go Right or Left?

The Supreme Court has clarified that parties cannot pursue both revocation and counter claim remedies simultaneously for the same patent under Indian law. This decision aims to prevent multiple proceedings on identical issues before different forums.

Keeping Secrets from the Patent Office? Think Again!

Section 8 of the Indian Patents Act mandates full disclosure of foreign patent filings by applicants. Failing to comply may result in opposition or patent revocation. This post provides a comparative legal analysis and discusses the consequences of non-disclosure.

Indian Patent Revocation: K. Manivannan, Vs. Shri M. Mani, Proprietor Valasumani Lathe Works

The Appellate Board dismissed the revocation request against Valasumani Lathe Works’ patent, finding no anticipation from prior art or abandoned applications. This decision clarifies key principles on anticipation and prior art for Indian patent law.