Indian Bare Acts

Search Alphabatically :

THE PATENTS ACT, 1970

Title : THE PATENTS ACT, 1970

Year : 1970



(1) The Central Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary that an invention which is the subject of an application for a patent or a patent should be acquired from the applicant or the patentee for a public purpose, publish a notification to that effect in the Official Gazette, and thereupon the invention or patent and all rights in respect of the invention or patent shall, by force of this section, stand transferred to and be vested in the Central Government.

(2) Notice of the acquisition shall be given to the applicant, and, where a patent has been granted, to the patentee and other persons, if any, appearing in the register as having an interest in the patent.

(3) The Central Government shall pay to the applicant, or, as the case may be, the patentee and other persons appearing on the register as having an interest in the patent such compensation as may be agreed upon between the Central Government and the applicant, or the patentee and other persons; or, as may, in default of agreement, be determined by the High Court on a reference under section 103 to be just having regard to the expenditure incurred in connection with the invention and, in the case of a patent, the term thereof, the period during which and the manner in which it has already been worked (including the profits made during such period by the patentee or by his licensee whether exclusive or otherwise) and other relevant factors.



(1) Any dispute as to the exercise by the Central Government or a person authorised by it of the powers conferred by section 100, or as to terms for the use of an invention for the purposes of Government thereunder or as to the right of any person to receive any part of a payment made in pursuance of sub-section (3) of that section or as to the amount of compensation payable for the acquisition of an invention or a patent under section 102, may be referred to the High Court by either party to the dispute in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules of the High Court
(2) In any proceedings under this section to which the Central Government is a party, the Central Government may,-

(a) If the patentee is a party to the proceedings, petition by way of counterclaim for revocation of the patent on any ground upon which a patent may be revoked under sectin 64; and

(b) Whether a patentee is or is not a party to the proceedings, put in issue the validity of the patent without petitioning for its revocation.

(3) If in such proceedings as aforesaid any question arises whether an invention has been recorded, tested or tried as is mentioned in section 100, and the disclosure of any document regarding the invenlion, or of any evidence of the test or trial thereof, would, in the opinion of the Central Government, be prejudicial to the public interest, the disclosure may be made confidentially to the advocate of the other party or to an independent expert mutually agreed upon.

(4) In determining under this section any dispute between the Central Government and any person as to terms for the use of an invention for the purposes of Government, the High Court shall have regard to any benefit or compensation which that person or any person from whom he derives title, may have received, or may be entitled to receive, directly or indirectly in respect of the use of the invention in question for the purposes of Government.

(5) In any proceedings under this section, the High Court may at any time order the whole proceedings or any question or issue of fact arising therein to be referred of an official referee, commissioner or an arbitrator on such terms as the High Court may direct, and references to the High Court in the foregoing provisions of this section shall be construed accordingly.

(6) Where the invention claimed in a patent was made by a person who at the time ih was made was in the service of the Central Government or of a State Government or was an employee of a Government undertaking and the subject-matter of the invention is certified by the relevant Government or the principal officer of the Government undertaking to be connected with the work done in the course of the normal duties of the Government servant or employee of the Government undertaking, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this section, any dispute of the nature referred to in subsection (1) relating to the invention shall be disposed of by the Cenlral Government conformably to the provisions of this section so far as may be applicable, but before doing so the Central Government shall give an opportunity to the patentee and such other parties as it considers have an interest in the matter to be heard.



No suit for a declaration under section 105 or for any relief under section 106 or for infringement of a patent shall be instituted in any court inferior to a district court having jurisdiction to try the suit:

Provided that where a counter-claim for revocation of the patent is made by the defendant, the suit, along with the counter-claim, shall be transferred to the High Court for decision.

104A -1* Burden of proof in case of suits concerning infringement

(1) In any suit for infringement of a patent, where the subject matter of patent is a process for obtaining a product, the court may direct the defendant to prove that the process used by him to obtain the product, identical to the product of the patented process, is different from the patented process if,-

(a) The subject matter of the patent is a process for obtaining a 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.

(2) 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.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Inserted by Patents (Amdt) Act, 2002. dated 25.06.2002 w.e.f 20.05.2003.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), any person may institute a suit for a declaration that the use by him of any process, or the making, use of sale of any 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 licence under 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 acknowledgement 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 acknowledgement.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

(4) A suit for a declaration may be brought by virtue of this section at any time1*[after the publication of grant of a patent], and references in this section to the patentee shall be construed accordingly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Substituted by Patents Amendment Act, 2005 (15 of 2005) for the words: after the date of advertisement of acceptance of the complete specification of a patent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(1) Where any person (whether entitled to or interested in a patent or an application for 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 relief’s, 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.

(2) 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 existence of a patent does not constitute a threat of proceeding within the meaning of this section.

Last updated on July, 2016

Find a Lawyer

Legal Hall of Fame

The current Legal Luminaries of India, the credible names in the legal circle along with those who would be the leading stars of the next decade. These are some of the reliable names in field of law. Nominate the Legal Stars of tomorrow

More

Recent Judgment


Sudha Mishra vs. Surya Chandra Mishra( R.F.A 299 of 2014

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sudha Mishra vs. Surya Chandra Mishra (R.F.A 299 of 2014)has ruled that a woman has a right over the property of her husband but she cannot claim a right to live in the house of her parents-in-law

More

Bare Acts

Helpline Law provides a user friendly compendium of Indian Law & Bare Acts. Get a complete list & detail of Indian Bare Acts, with amendments and repeals. It comes with easy-to-use features like Search by bare acts & by year. You can even email the information to yourself!

More

Have a Legal Matter ?
Need a Lawyer?

Have a Legal Matter ?

Need a Lawyer?

Male
Female