(a) likelihood that the identical product is

(a) The subject matter of the patent is a process for obtaining as new product; or (b) There is a substantial likelihood that the identical product is made by the process, and the patentee or a person deriving title or interest in the patent from him, has been unable through reasonable efforts to determine the process actually used. Provided that the patentee or a person deriving title or interest in the patent from him first proves that the product is identical to the product directly obtained by the patented process. In considering whether a party has discharged the burden imposed upon him by sub-section (1), the court shall not require him to disclose any manufacturing or commercial secrets, if it appears to the court that it would be unreasonable to do so. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, any person may institute a suit for a declaration that the use by him of any process, or the making, use or sale article by him does not, or would not, constitute an infringement of a claim of a patent against the patentee or the holder of an exclusive license the patent, notwithstanding that no assertion to the contrary has been made by the patentee or the licensee, if it is shown (a) That the plaintiff has applied in writing to the patentee or exclusive licensee for a written acknowledgment to the effect of the declaration claimed and has furnished him with full particulars in writing of the process or article in question; and (b) That the patentee or licensee has refused or neglected to give such an acknowledgment.

The costs of all parties in a suit for a declaration brought by virtue of this section shall, unless for special reasons the court thinks fit to order otherwise, be paid by the plaintiff. The validity of a claim of the specification of a patent shall not be called in question in a suit for a declaration brought by virtue of this section, and accordingly the making or refusal of such a declaration in the case of a patent shall not be deemed to imply that the patent is valid or invalid. A suit for a declaration may be brought by virtue of this section at any time after the publication of grant of a patent, and references in this section to the patentee shall be construed accordingly. Section 106 provides about the threat of infringement proceedings – Where any person (whether entitled to or interested in a patent or an application for a patent or not) threatens any other person by circulars or advertisements or by communications, oral or in writing, addressed to that or any other person, with proceedings for infringement of a patent, any person aggrieved thereby may bring a suit against him praying for the following reliefs, that is to say- (a) A declaration to the effect that the threats are unjustifiable; (b) An injunction against the continuance of the threats; and (c) Such damages, if any, as he has sustained thereby. Unless in such suit the defendant proves that the acts in respect of which the proceedings were threatened constitute or, if done, would constitute, an infringement of a patent or of rights arising from the publication of a complete specification in respect of a claim of the specification not shown by the plaintiff to be invalid, the court may grant to the plaintiff all or any of the reliefs prayed for.

Explanation: A mere notification of the existing of a patent does not constitute a threat of proceeding within the meaning of this section. In any suit for infringement of a patent, every ground on which« may be revoked under section 64 shall be available as a ground for defense In any suit for infringement of a patent by the making, using 0r importation of any machine, apparatus or other article or by the using of any process or by the importation, use or distribution of any medicine or drug, it shall be a ground for defense that such making, using importation or distribution is in accordance with any one or more of the conditions specified in section 47. According to section 107A, certain acts not to be considered as infringement – For the purposes of this Act- (a) Any act of making, constructing, using .selling or importing a patented invention solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information required under any law for the time being in force, in India, or in any country other than India, that regulates the manufacture, construction, use, sale or import of any product; 9 (b) Importation of patented products by any person from a person who is duly authorized under the law to produce and sell or distribute the product, flow shall not be considered as a infringement of patent rights.

The reliefs which a court may grant in any suit for infringement includes an injunction (subject to such terms, if any, as the court thinks fit) and, at the option of the plaintiff, either damages or an account of profits The court may also order that the goods which are found to be infringing and materials and implements, the predominant use of which is in the creation of infringing goods shall be seized, forfeited or destroyed, as the court deems fir under the circumstances of the case without payment of any compensation. The holder of an exclusive license shall have the like right as the patentee to institute a suit in respect of any infringement of the patent committed after the date of the license, and in awarding damages or an account of profits or granting any other relief in any such suit the court shall take into consideration any loss suffered or likely to be suffered by the exclusive licensee as such or, as the case may be, the profits earned ‘ by means of the infringement so far as it constitutes an infringement of the rights of the exclusive licensee as such. In any suit for infringement of a patent by the holder of an exclusive license under sub-section (1), the patentee shall, unless he has joined as a plaintiff in the suit, be added as a defendant, but a patentee so added as defendant shall not be liable for any costs unless he enters an Appearance and takes part in the proceedings.

Any person to whom a license has been granted under section 84 shall entitled to call upon the patentee to take proceedings to prevent any infringement of the patent, and, if the patentee refuses or neglects to do so within two months after being so called upon, the licensee may institute proceedings for the infringement in his own name as though he were the patentee, making the patentee a defendant; but a patentee so added as defendant shall not be liable for any costs unless he enters an appearance and takes part in the proceedings. In a suit for infringement of a patent, damages or an account of profits shall not be granted against the defendant who proves that at the date of the infringement he was not aware and had no reasonable grounds for believing that the patent existed. Explanation: A person shall not be deemed to have been aware or to have had reasonable grounds for believing that a patent exists by reason only of the application to an article of the word “patent”, “patented” or any word or words expressing or implying that a patent has been obtained for the article, unless the number of the patent accompanies the word or words in question. In any suit for infringement of a patent the court may, if it thinks fit, refuse to grant any damages or an account of profits in respect of any infringement committed after a failure to pay any renewal fee within the prescribed period and before any extension of that period. Where an amendment of a specification by way of disclaimer, correction or explanation has been allowed under this Act after the publication of the specification, no damages or account of profits shall be granted in any proceeding in respect of the use of the invention before the date of the decision allowing the amendment, unless the court is satisfied that the specification as originally published was framed in good faith and with reasonable skill and knowledge. Nothing shall affect the power of the court to grant an injunction in any suit for infringement of a patent.

If in any proceedings before the Appellate Board or a High Court for the revocation of a patent under section 64 and section 104, as the case may be, the validity of any claim of a specification is contested and that claim is found by the Appellate Board or the High Court to be valid, the Appellate Board or the High Court may certify that the validity of that claim was contested in those proceedings and was upheld.” Where any such certificate has been granted, then, if in any subsequent suit before a court for infringement of that claim of the patent or in any subsequent proceeding for revocation of the patent in so far as it relates to that claim, the patentee or other person relying on the validity of the claim obtains a final order or judgment in his favour, he shall be entitled to an order for the payment of his full costs, charges and expenses of and incidental to any such suit or proceeding properly incurred so far as they concern the claim in respect of which the certificate was granted, unless the court trying the suit or proceeding otherwise directs: Provided that the costs as specified in this sub-section shall not be ordered when the party disputing the validity of the claim satisfies the court that he was not aware of the grant of the certificate when he raised the dispute and withdrew forthwith such defense when he became aware of such a certificate. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as authorizing the courts or the Appellate Board hearing appeals from decrees or orders in suits for infringement or petitions for revocation, as the case may be, to pass orders for costs on the scale referred to therein.

” According to section 114, if in proceedings for infringement of a patent it is found that any claim of the specification, being a claim in respect of which infringement is alleged, is valid, but that any other claim is invalid, the court may grant relief in respect of any valid claim which is infringed: Provided that the court shall not grant relief except by way of injunction save in the circumstances mentioned below. Where the plaintiff proves that the invalid claim was framed in good faith and with reasonable skill and knowledge, the court shall grant relief in respect of any valid claim which is infringed subject to the discretion of the court as to costs and as to the date from which damages or an account of profits should be reckoned, and in exercising such discretion the court may take into consideration the conduct of the parties in inserting such invalid claims in the specification or permitting them to remain there.

x

Hi!
I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out