The LexCampus Weekly Newsletter No.21
26th May, 2021
Hi,
This week’s judgement is from Delhi High Court which discusses the execution or enforcement of Anti-suit Injunction in a SEP patent infringement dispute. This case also appreciates the Jurisprudence of passing an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction by the Court, when the proceedings are still pending in a foreign court. This week’s blog post discusses the commercial working statements of Patents in India. This week we continue with the topic of drafting, the Body of Claims.
PATENT CASE LAW SUMMARY
InterDigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v. Xiaomi Corporation & Ors.
CS(COMM) 295/2020
InterDigital by the present application sought injunction, against the defendants, from enforcing, against them, the directions passed by Wuhan Court which essentially imposed penalties against it if it proceeded with its injunction or damages suit against Xiaomi. The Delhi High Court after considering the fact that a court in one sovereign jurisdiction cannot injunct a party from pursuing its cause against infringement before another sovereign jurisdiction, where such latter jurisdiction is the only forum competent to adjudicate such claims restrained enforcement of Anti-Suit injunction in favour of InterDigital and directed Xiaomi to indemnify InterDigital against any penalty, issued by the Wuhan court. Read more
FROM OUR PATENT BLOG
Commercial working statement of Patents in India
Section 146 of the Patents Act, 1970 read with Rule 131 of the Patents Rules, 2003 obliges every patentee to disclose the true extent of commercial working of their patent, each year as per the format specified as ‘FORM-27’. The said Form includes details on whether the patented invention has been worked on a commercial scale within India for the year, the reasons for such non-working if applicable and details with respect to value of such patents etc. This blog post gives an overview of commercial statements of working of patents filed in India, the changes introduced to it by amendment of Patent Rules and how such requirement is different from requirement of utility of patents. Read more
DRAFTING A PATENT – BODY OF CLAIMS
- When the elements of the body of claim are introduced for the first time either “a” or “an” can be used as grammatically appropriate. Subsequent usage of the elements can be preceded with “said” or “the.”
- There should be clarity in those elements which refer to an earlier recited or referenced element to avoid confusions with respect to the intention of reference.
That’s all folks for this week!
Team LexCampus