Indian Bare Acts

Search Alphabatically :

THE PATENTS ACT, 1970

Title : THE PATENTS ACT, 1970

Year : 1970



(1) In any suit for infringement of a patent every ground on which it may be revoked under section 64 shall be available as a ground for defence.

(2) In any suit for infringement of a patent by the making, using or importation of any machine, apparatus of other article or by the using of any process or by the importation, use or distribution or any medicine or drug, it shall be a ground for defence that such making, using, importation or distribution is in accordance with any one or more of the conditions specified in section 47.

107A - 1*Certain acts not to be considered as infringement

(a) any act of making, constructing,2*[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 a country other than India, that regulates the manufacture, construction,3*[use, sale or import] of any product;

(b) importation of patented products by any person from a person4*[who is duly authorised under the law to produce and sell or distribute the product], shall not be considered as a infringement of patent rights.]

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

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

2. Substituted by Patents Amendment Act, 2005 (15 of 2005) for the words: using or selling.

3. Substituted by Patents Amendment Act, 2005 (15 of 2005) for the words: use or sale.

4. Substituted by Patents Amendment Act, 2005 (15 of 2005) for the words: who is duly authorised by the patentee to sell or distribute the product.

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



1*[(1)]The reliefs which a court may grant in any suit for infringement include 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.

1*[(2) The court may also order that the goods which are found to be infringing and materials and implement, the predominant use of which is in the creation of infringing goods shall be seized, forfeited or destroyed, as the court deems fit under the circumstances of the case without payment of any compensation]

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

1. Section108 renumbered as sub-section(1) thereof and after sub-section(1) so renumbered sub-section(2) inserted by Patents (Amdt) Act, 2002. dated 25.06.2002 w.e.f 20.05.2003.

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



(1) The holder of an exclusive licence 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 licence, 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.

(2) In any suit for infringement of a patent by the holder of an exclusive licence 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 licence has been granted under section 84 shall be entitled to call upon the paientee 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.



(1) In a suit for infringement of 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.

(2) 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 with the prescribed period and before any extension of that period.

(3) 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.

(4) Nothing in this section shall affect the power of the court to grant an injunction in any suit for infringement of a patent.



1[***]

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

1. See 112 omitted by Patents (Amdt) Act, 2002. dated 25.06.2002 w.e.f 20.05.2003. Prior to omission it read as under:

 "112. Restriction on power of court to grant injunction in certain cases.-

If in proceedings for the infringement of a patent endorsed or deemed to be endorsed with the words "Licences of right" (otherwise than by the importation of the patented article from other countries) the infringing defendant is ready and willing to take a licence upon terms to be settled by the Controller as provided in section 88, no injunction shall be granted against him, and the amount if any recoverable against him by way of damages shall not exceed double the amount which would have been recoverable against him as licensee if such a licence had been granted before the earliest infringement".

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



1*[(1) 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].

(2) 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 soar 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 specific in this sub-section shall not be ordered when the parly 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 defence when he became aware of such a certificate.

2*[(3) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as authorising 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].

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

1. Substituted by Patents Amendment Act, 2005 (15 of 2005) for the words: (1) If in any proceedings before a High Court for the revocation of a patent under section 64 the validity of any claim of a specification is contested and that claim is found by the court to be valid, the court may certify that the validity of that claim was contested in those proceedings and was upheld.

2. Substituted by Patents Amendment Act, 2005 (15 of 2005) for the words: (3) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as authorising courts hearing appeals from decrees or orders in suits for infringement or petitions for revocation to pass orders for costs on the scale referred to therein.

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



(1) 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 in sub-section (2).

(2) 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.



(1) In any suit for infringement or in any proceeding before a court under this Act, the court may at any time, and whether or not an application has been made by any party for that purpose, appoint an independent scientific adviser, to assist the court or to inquire and report upon any such question of fact or of opinion (not involving a question of interpretation of law) as it may formulate for the purpose.

(2) The remuneration of the scientific adviser shall be fixed by the court and shall include the costs of making a report and a proper daily fee for any day on which the scientific adviser may be required to attend before the court, and such remuneration shall defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament by law for the purpose.



(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Appellate Board established under section 83 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 shall be the Appellate Board for the purposes of this Act and the said Appellate Board shall exercise the jurisdiction, power and authority conferred on it by or under this Act:

Provided that the Technical Member of the Appellate Board for the purposes of this Act shall have the qualifications specified in sub-section (2).

(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Technical Member for the purposes of this Act unless he-

(a) Has at least five years held the post of Controller under this Act or has exercised the functions of the Controller under this Act for at least five years; or

(b) Has been for at least ten years functioned as a Registered Patent Agent and possesses a degree in engineering or technology or a masters degree in science from any University established under law for the time being in force or equivalent; or

(c) 1*[Omitted]

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

1. Omitted by Patents (Amdt) Act, 2005 (15 of 2005), w.e.f. 02.04.2007. Prior to Omission it read as under: has, for atleast ten years, been an advocate of a proven specialised experience in practising law relating to patents and designs.

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

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