Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Chapter XII of the Act provides for revocation of patents. Section 64 of the Act provides for various grounds on which a counter claim can be filed for revocation of the patents. I quote Section 64 (1) of the Act as under.

"Section 64 (1) : Subject to the provisions contained in this Act, a patent, whether granted before or after the commencement of this Act, may be revoked on a petition of any person interested or of the Central Government by the Appellate Board or on a counter-claim in a suit for infringement of the patent by the High Court on any of the following grounds that is to say -

Respondent No.1 has not lodged any counter claim as provided by Section 64 of the Act by taking recourse to the grounds mentioned therein. It is only after the suit was filed respondent No.1 in his written statement/reply vaguely set up his defence about use of Systems for more than two decades or so in paragraph No.3 of the specific pleadings. I quote the said paragraph hereunder.

"3. Without prejudice, it is further submitted that the plaintiff has played fraud on the authorities who have allegedly granted patent in view of the fact that the plaintiff has not disclosed that the GSWR and Spiral Lock Systems had been in use since more than 2-3 decades and thus cannot be said to be termed as invention by any stretch of imagination. Further, the attention of this Hon'ble Court is also invited in the averments made in Para 18, page 10 of the application, in which the plaintiff itself has submitted that the GSWR system seeks to achieve the objectives and or overcome problems and limitations of the known prior methods used for rock fall protection. It is thus submitted that as per its own admission of the plaintiff, the said systems were already in use, thus could never have been patented."

From the affidavit of Shri Ramesh s/o Manjnath Telang I quote following paragraphs:

"ARTICLE - 1 :- I state and submit that the said article is absolutely irrelevant to the present proceedings as the said article only talks about fencing system, and does not give any specific product details. I further state that the said article only covers different aspects of tests to be conducted on the barricades and mainly addresses issues related with testing and certification of rockfall barriers in European Union."

From the affidavit of Shri Shashank Moreshwar Vaidya, I quote following paragraphs in rebuttal.

"ARTICLE- 1 :- I state that the said article talks about developing a guideline by European Organisation for technical approval (EOTA) for testing and certification of rock fall barriers. Additionally, the said article does not give any specific product details.