Article
Product-by-Process: Perception by Indian Patent Law
By Pranjal Dhiman and Archana Viswanathan
The article in this issue of IPR Amicus explores the scope of patentability and infringement concerning product-by-process claims with a specific emphasis on the recent two decisions of the Delhi High Court. The authors note how the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court supports the requirements defined by Clause 7.9 of the “Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications in the Field of Pharmaceuticals” for product-by-process claims. Elaborately stating the facts of the case, the contentions of the parties, and the decision of the Single Bench, the authors note that the Division Bench has stayed the finding of the Single Bench while it did not agree with the views of the Single Bench that prima facie the patent involved in the dispute is a product-by-process claim and monopoly will be limited to the product obtained by the specific process in the claims. According to the authors, consequently, the patentability and infringement analysis for product-by-process claims should predominantly focus on the product feature stated in the claim.
Statute Update
- GI registrations – Draft Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) (Amendment) Rules issued
Ratio decidendi
- Patents – Appointment of local commissioner to secure evidence to support case of either party, is not permissible – Delhi High Court
- Trademarks ‘Indian Royal Stag’ and ‘Indian Stag’, both used for IMFL, are deceptively similar with likelihood of confusion – Delhi High Court
- Trademarks ‘LIV.55’ and ‘LIV.999’ are deceptively similar to the mark ‘LIV.52’ – Delhi High Court
- Service of documents on e-mail ID, if same provided by trademark applicant/opponent himself, is valid – Delhi High Court
- Valuation of IPR suits and jurisdiction of Commercial Courts – Division Bench of Delhi HC overrules directions of Single Bench in Vishal Pipes
News Nuggets
- Computation of damages in patent and trademark infringements – Delhi High Court computes huge damages in two cases
- En masse denial of public documents like trademark registrations is not to be permitted
- Passing off in logo of Japan Patent Office – Delhi HC terms situation as ‘Theft in police station’
- Outstation/overseas witnesses not to be called repeatedly for cross examination
- Writ against IPAB order, filed before its abolition, is to be heard by Single Bench
