Section 107 | Intellepedia

No double riding! Court clarifies on patent revocation plea in case involving Philips

The image shows a Businessman balancing with one foot on each of two small wooden boats in open water, illustrating the attempt by one of the Parties in this case to seek patent revocation through multiple forums.

In the case of Versuni Holding B.V. Trading as Preethi v. Maya Appliances Private Limited, the patent holder had already sued for infringement before the Delhi High Court. The alleged infringer then filed a written statement there seeking invalidity and revocation of the patent, but also filed a separate revocation petition before the Madras High Court. The Madras High Court dismissed that separate revocation petition and accepted the objection to its maintainability.

Wanted Dead or Alive: Delhi High Court Holds Patent Revocation Survives Expiry and Section 107 Defence

Hand wearing a blue glove holding a small vial beside torn paper with the words “How to Survive,” symbolizing the Patent revocation case as decided by the Delhi High Court between Boehringer Ingelheim v. Controller

In the case of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Controller of Patents & Anr., the Delhi High Court addressed two important questions under the Patents Act: whether a revocation petition survives patent expiry, and whether it can continue after a Section 107 invalidity defence is raised in an infringement suit. The dispute arose from parallel revocation and infringement proceedings relating to Patent IN 243301 covering Linagliptin. The court held that revocation under Section 64 remains maintainable despite patent expiry and is not barred by a Section 107 defence.

Who Bears the Patent Credibility Challenge Burden?

A photo featuring Auguste Rodin's sculpture The Thinker positioned outdoors against a backdrop of green trees and blue sky. On the left side, there is a dense leafy tree, while on the right, a classical stone building with columns is partially visible.

Mold Tek filed a case for infringement of its patents relating to tamper-proof plastic lids, and secured an interim injunction. The Commercial Court vacated the injunction, placing the burden of establishing validity on the patentee. The Delhi High Court reversed this, clarifying that it is the defendant’s burden to raise a credible invalidity defence under Section 107.