Delhi High Court has recently upheld order of the Single Judge that revocation of a patent is not automatic under Section 64(1)(m) of the Patents Act, 1970 and that it is open to the court to examine whether the omission to furnish information under Section 8 of the Act was deliberate or intentional. This order has been taken up for providing a summary and views by the author in this November 2014 issue of IPR Amicus. According to the author, it can be said that this Division Bench order has added more weight to the interpretation that involves assessing whether there was any deliberate or willful suppression as opposed to the interpretation adopted by the IPAB.
Under Ratio decidendi column, Delhi High Court has held that virtual shop is sufficient to invoke territorial jurisdiction in action against infringement and a note on this order is included in this issue. Along with certain orders relating to trademarks, this issue covers Bombay High Court Order where the Court, after noting that till particular period the defendant’s company was not even in existence, while the plaintiff was granted patent in India and abroad, and hence it was not likely for the defendants to have invented such patented process, granted interim relief finding an overwhelming prima facie case at interim stage.