The LexCampus Weekly Newsletter No. 4

27th January 2021

This week we look at a Delhi High Court judgement dealing with a point of procedural law in patent suits. The main issue dealt with in Bristol Myers v. Natco was whether the Court could automatically stay proceedings in an infringement suit  owing to a declaratory suit previously filed by the other party in a different civil court? The Court looked into Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure while answering this question in the negative. Next, we look at the global response to COVID-19 shown by the various Intellectual Property Offices in the restructuring of their administration and adoption of technology to ensure uninterrupted regulation of IP rights, The newsletter offers tips on how to draft a preamble to a patent and concludes with a Q&A on patent law. 

PATENT CASE LAW

Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v. Natco Pharma

2020 SCC Online Del 200

The High Court of Delhi ruled that the existence of a previously instituted civil suit does not automatically warrant a stay of proceedings in an infringement suit. Furthermore, a suit for declaration of non-infringement of a patent cannot be filed under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 since such a relief has been expressly dealt with under Section 105 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court also spoke about the exhaustive nature of the Patents Act, 1970 in dealing with certain remedies related to enforcement of patent rights. Read more

FROM OUR PATENT BLOG

Intellectual Property Offices and their response to Covid 19 

In the wake of COVID-19, businesses were shut down, public spaces were closed and life as we knew it came to a standstill. Soon, all sectors of the economy started moving towards electronic modes of communication and conducting daily affairs. Educational institutions, multinational companies, government offices, everyone started working on building infrastructure and internal regulations that would help continue their functioning as close to pre-pandemic levels as possible without having to compromise on the health and safety of individuals. All this innovation and invention meant a rise in generation of intellectual property, particularly patents that would serve the inventors working across various sectors of the economy. This article examines the trend in IP filing during the pandemic as well as the various measures adopted by IP offices to continue their functions and deal with the emerging pandemic situation. Read more

PATENT DRAFTING TIPS – PREAMBLE

• The preamble will be considered to have a limitation on the claim if it breathes life and essence into the claim terms, or if it is necessary to rely on the preamble to fully understand the claim recital. 
• The absence of a preamble element from the accused device does not prove non-infringement if the terms of the preamble do not breathe life and meaning to the claims.

PATENT Q&A

Question: I have a query on section 20. What I understand from section 20 is that substitution of applicants is carried out in an application stage, is this section applicable for substitution of applicants after grant of the patent as well?

Answer: This section is not applicable for substitution of applicant after the grant and there is no need to substitute applicants after the grant, the reason is simple, the status of an applicant changes to that of a patentee after the grant. Now this should give you the answer. If you look at section 20, Read More

That’s all folks for this week.

Team LexCampus