Article
Validity and infringement of a Patent: An Analysis of the Judgment in Communication Components Antenna Inc v. Ace Technologies Corp.
by Jegannathan S and R. Parthasarathy
The article in this issue of IPR Amicus emphasizes on the purposive construction of claims with respect to a patent to ensure that they are not too narrowly construed. The Author has taken up a recent Delhi High Court judgement in the case Communication Components Antenna Inc v. Ace Technologies Corp. and Ors., wherein prima facie infringement of patent in Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency, which is a split-sector antenna, was found. The High Court rejected the contentions of the defendant that the patent was not valid considering the US patent of the same product. The Court held that the language of claims in the foreign jurisdictions can be referred to ensure that the invention is broadly the same and that, for determining infringement in India, the variation in the language of the claims in different jurisdictions need not be examined in a minute fashion. It noted that the defendants did not produce beam patterns of their antenna to show that they were not infringing the plaintiff’s patent. The judgment also makes it clear that an older patent will be considered more favorably for injunction…
Ratio decidendi
- Patents - Registration under Insecticides Act is not ‘prior publication’ of process - Delhi High Court
- Trademark passing off – No monopoly in word ‘iTerm’ used for online insurance policies - Bombay High Court
- Copyright in film script – Court cannot opine without seeing both scripts - Bombay High Court
- Trademark passing-off in packaged drinking water to be treated same as in pharmaceuticals - Bombay High Court
- Trademarks - Delay in rectification application is not abandonment - Delhi High Court
News Nuggets
- License not required for playing sound recordings in marriage functions
- Draft model guidelines on IPR policy for academic institutions released
- Trademark infringement – Presence of media intermediaries before Court when not required
- Trademarks – Ex-parte ad interim injunction on imitation of splat device
- Trademarks – No confusion in same name of perfume with different house name
- Trademarks – Monopolization of word ‘Pancharishta’ when correct
- Continuation of injunction even for a day impermissible once patent revoked
