Sufficiency of Disclosure – Ericsson vs Lava – Part X

This post examines the Court’s analysis in this case regarding the validity of Ericsson’s patents in the context of Sufficiency of Disclosure.
The counterclaim, filed by Lava, alleged that Ericsson’s patents failed to comply with the sufficiency of disclosure requirements mandated by the Sections 64(1)(h) and 64(1)(i) of the Patents Act.

The Court relied on relevant portions from Terell on the Law Patents [1], Ace Technologies v. Communication Components [2], and Agfa NV and Anr. v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr [3] for analyzing whether Ericsson’s patents satisfied the Sufficiency of Disclosure requirement. The Court stated the following:

“105. From the aforesaid, the legal position that emerges is that the claims of a patent must be interpreted in the context of the complete specification of the patent, and the sufficiency of the invention’s disclosure should be evaluated taking into consideration the references to the claims and the complete specification. Further, the question with regard to the sufficiency. of a specification has to be from the standpoint of a person skilled in the art and not a layman. It cannot be disputed that the complete specification is addressed to the person skilled in the art and it should enable such a person to implement the invention.

106. In Agfa NV and Anr. v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr., while applying the aforesaid legal position, I have held that when a patent is describing the preferred embodiments of an invention and sufficiently describing the components of an invention, the Complete Specification of the patent is in conformity with the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure as per Section 10(4) and Section 10(5) of the Patents Act.”

Decision:

Based on the aforementioned citations and after hearing the arguments from both the parties, the Court held that the patent claims of Ericsson read with the Complete Specifications fairly and sufficiently described the invention to enable the person skilled in the art to work the invention. The Court therefore held that the ground of revocation taken by Lava under Section 64(1)(h) and Section 64(1)(i) of the Patents Act was devoid of merits.

Citation: Lava International Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, High Court of Delhi, 28th March, 2024, CS(COMM) 65/2016, CS(COMM) 1148/2016 and CC(COMM) 14/2017.

References
1. Terrel on the Law of Patents, Vol. Sixteenth Edition, Pg 1201.
2. Ace Technologies v. Communication Components, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2082.
3. AGFA NV and Anr. v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3493.

 

Authored by Ms. Sowmya S. Murthy, Patent Team, BananaIP Counsels.

Also read

 

Disclaimer

The case note/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.

If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with a Patent attorney, please reach us at: [email protected] or 91-80-26860414/24/34.