Recently, the Delhi High Court (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) has noted an increase in the number of patent infringement actions in several sectors. With this in mind, the High Court has published the final draft of the Delhi High Court Patent Prosecution Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) to reflect the evolving complexity of patent litigation and litigation. “Over the past 10-15 years, the Delhi High Court has seen a sharp growth in the number of patent infringement applications filed with it in various scientific and technological fields such as pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, mechanical engineering, telecommunications, electrical/electronics, wind technology, etc. The need for the current rules was felt because of the complexity that has arisen in the treatment of patent actions and actions. Earlier this month, the court proposed the rules for setting up the Intellectual Property (IP) Department in Delhi HC to deal with all issues related to IPR (intellectual property rights). The Intellectual Property Department deals with ongoing proceedings, CMM, RFA, Writ Petition (Civil), FAO on intellectual property rights disputes, except those to be dealt with by the Chamber. In accordance with Rule 16, In addition to the provisions of the Commercial Court Summary Decisions Act 2015, the summary judgment of patent actions may be enforced under the following conditions: The court may, at any stage of the proceedings, appoint a mediator or group of mediators or a qualified independent expert to consider an amicable solution. The procedure for such a solution may take place at the same time as the court proceedings before the court, and the court does not need the consent of the parties for mediation. In addition, the general clause of the Rules (Rule 17) states: “Procedures and definitions not expressly provided for in these Rules are generally governed by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Delhi High Court Rules 2018 (original part) and the Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules of the High Court. of Delhi. 2021, provided they do not conflict with these rules. The Delhi High Court Rules Governing Patent Prosecutions, 2022 are a set of 17 rules that establish different definitions relevant to the grant of patents and explain their meaning.
Previously, various lawsuits related to patent grant proceedings were provided for in a short excerpt, but now the Delhi High Court has explained in its rules the different types of actions and their required documents, i.e. patent actions, letter of construction of claims, letter of invalidity, letter of infringement, the non-infringement letter and the damages letter/profit declaration letter. Similarly, several steps in the granting of patents have been explained in detail and the documents required for each step have been clearly stated to ensure that all information is available while the issues are being discussed. The requirements for complaints, written statements, counterclaims, replication requests, party memoranda and affidavits have all been clearly established by these rules. In addition, the chronology of patent granting procedures was given in relation to the first hearing of a claim, the first, second and third case management hearings, the last hearing, mediation and summary decision, indicating all their requirements accordingly. Other relevant provisions relate to the Council of Scientific Advisors and the general clause of the Regulations. Rule 3(D) deals with one of the main aspects of patent litigation, namely reproduction. It stipulates that the reproduction must first summarize both the plaintiff`s cause and the defendant`s case, after which a response to the written statement must be given. The report states that the automotive industry is one of the fastest growing and best-selling industries.
The range of international filing trends is expected to be felt in the automotive industry. These rules were made in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966; 129 of the 1908 Code of Civil Procedure and the powers conferred by the various intellectual property laws as amended by the Court Reform Act, 2021. Infringement Brief: The plaintiff must provide an interpretation of the claim and compare the elements of each claim with those of the defendant`s product or process and indicate how it infringes the claimed claims. In the case of infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEP), the infringement letter must match the patent claims to the standard and specify how the defendant infringes the patent claims. In other words, a comparison of the defendant`s claims, standard and claims must be mapped and an analysis provided with respect to the infringement. It is clear that the procedures and mechanisms proposed in the Delhi High Court Rules for Patent Actions – 2022 are aimed at expediting the resolution of cases. Deed of invalidity: The declaration of revocation must contain references to the prior art citing the relevant paragraphs, page number or columns of a page that anticipates or purportedly suggests the claims, and an analysis must be provided to show how novelty or inventive step is destroyed. In case of non-patentability under Article 3 or 4 of the Act, a reasoned statement must be submitted.
The case law cited can also be clarified. Where invalidity is invoked on the basis of Articles 64(h) and 64(i), the procedural document must clearly indicate the claims which are not sufficiently disclosed or which are not substantiated or activated in the description. The inadequacy in relation to any claim can be stated with an explanation.