- Case number
- C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 38/2022
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Amit Bansal
- Outcome
- Rectification allowed
Headnote
Objections to the maintainability of a revocation petition rejected on two grounds. First, a petition under section 64 is not barred because the petitioner has also pleaded invalidity as a defence under section 107 in the patentee's infringement suit. The two are entirely different in scope and effect: revocation under section 64 operates in rem and removes the patent from the Register, while a finding of invalidity on a section 107 defence binds only the contesting parties, and section 114 lets the court still grant relief on claims that are valid. Section 58(1) allows the High Court in a revocation proceeding to permit amendment of the specification instead of revoking, which it cannot do on a section 107 defence. It is the party's choice whether to file a standalone petition or a counter-claim in the suit, and nothing in the Act curtails that choice. Second, the petition survives expiry of the patent term. The petitioner is a person interested under section 2(1)(t), and since the patentee's own suit survives expiry for the purpose of damages, the same rationale keeps the revocation petition alive.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.