Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. We do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the above contention (fifth in the series of contentions), that even though more than one remedies are available to the respondents in Section 64 of the Patents Act, the word "or" used therein separating the different remedies provided therein, would disentitle them to avail of both the remedies, for the same purpose, simultaneously. On principle also, this would be the correct legal position.

[Emphasis supplied]"

12. As noted above, Supreme Court in Aloys Wobben (supra) was dealing with a situation whether „any person interested‟ had the right to file both application under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act as a post-grant opposition as also a revocation petition under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act. It is for the reason that two parallel remedies cannot be invoked by a party which may result in conflicting decisions and the fact that „any person interested‟ had a right to file a post-grant opposition within one year of the grant of patent, Supreme Court held that by grant of patent itself the rights in favour of the patent holder do not crystallize finally, for the reason „any person interested‟ can issue a notice of opposition within one year of the date of publication of grant of a patent and, if and when challenge raised to the grant of patent are disposed of favourably to the advantage of the patent holder, the right to hold patent can then and then alone be stated to have crystallized. Supreme Court also noted that it was unlikely and quite impossible that an infringement suit would be filed while the proceedings under Section 25(2) of the Patent Act are pending or within a year of the date of publication of the grant of a patent. However, the situation where infringement of the suit patent occurs or is alleged soon after the grant of patent was not discussed by the Supreme Court, the same being not an issue before the Supreme Court, thus it did not hold that a suit for infringement within one year of grant of the patent would not be maintainable and would be liable to be rejected as premature. Hence the contention of learned counsel for the defendant No.2 that the present suit is liable to be rejected having been filed within one year of the grant of patent i.e. on 12 th February, 2019 deserves to be rejected.