In terms of patent litigation, India's Delhi High Court is the busiest court, It is followed by Bombay High Court and Madras High Court. The Delhi High Court has become a hub for patent litigation, And helped to develop Indian patent law. Its decisions have not only been noticed by other high courts in the country, It has also attracted the attention of other international courts.

For example, In a case involving two pharmaceutical giants (F. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd v Cipla Ltd. ) , The Delhi High Court ruled against Indian generic drug makers Cipa Encroaching on Swiss pharmaceutical companies Hoffmann-La Roche Of Elotinib hydrochloride.

similarly, in Merck Sharp & Dohme v Glenmark In the drug company case, The Delhi High Court banned Mumbai's Glenmark Pharmaceutical companies sell based on Merck Sharp & Dohme The patented drug sitagliptin is an anti-diabetic drug. The significance of the ruling lies in the fact that the case is less than 2 The case was closed within a year (Including the timing of the trial) .

Patent infringement cases are not just about legal issues, There are also complex technical issues involved. Clarity on these issues is important to reach an appropriate and fair verdict. Technical expertise is an essential part of any patent litigation. In order to reduce the time delay for the parties to question and cross-examine technical witnesses, The Delhi High Court allowed it "Soaking bath" (hot-tubbing) , That is, the court will ask technical experts from both sides for their views on the points in dispute. This greatly reduces the time required to document technical evidence.

Another trend is for local commissioners appointed by the court to record evidence. Given the huge number of cases pending in each court, Recording evidence takes a lot of time. Local commissioners have the flexibility to conduct hearings, They can even hold consecutive hearings to obtain evidence.

usually, The district commissioner appointed by the court is a retired judge. In India, One of the challenges is the inevitable delay in the final decision of a case. with "2015 Commercial Court Act, 2000" promulgate, The Indian Government has taken an important step towards reforming a process that has led to delays. One important change brought about by the law "Case management hearing" A mutually agreed timetable was set, Make the trial process smoother, More organized and timed. Under summary judgment, If the case does not require a detailed evidence-gathering trial, Either party may apply for summary treatment of a case or an issue.

Another important reform is the introduction of mandatory pre-court mediation in cases where one of the parties does not seek emergency relief. The timetable for filing a complaint is also stricter, This is one of the main causes of delays. Up to 2018 years 10 month, Delhi High Court 63%The case is insufficient 1 Within a year of closing the case, only 17%The case continued 2 More than years. In addition, Data display 45%The business case was settled, 34%The case is decided by the court.

On patent litigation, One of the predictable trends is that parties will settle disputes rather than take them to court. Even after the review has begun and even after the lawsuit has been completed, Parties may also be more likely to settle rather than wait for a court ruling. Early settlement of patent cases depends on the outcome of the patentee's request for an interim injunction.

At the beginning of the case, There will be a fierce fight over the temporary ban. In most cases, The court will grant a temporary injunction at the first hearing, Grant an ex parte injunction even before summoning the defendant. indeed, This puts patent holders at an advantage, The case can be brought to an early conclusion through settlement.

For example, In most of the lawsuits Ericsson has filed against several different handset makers in India, The courts have granted temporary injunctions. The proceedings ended in a settlement between the parties, The defendant agrees to pay the royalty at a mutually agreed rate.

similarly, American patent management Company Vringo Wholly-owned subsidiary of Vringo Infrastructure Lawsuits against several different entities also ended in settlements. 2010 After the year, There has been an increase in information and communication technology litigation. First of all, Philips sued an Indian assembler DVD The player's manufacturer infringes its standard essential patent (SEP) .

subsequently, Ericsson has sued several handset makers in India, For example, 2011 Annual prosecution Kingtech, 2013 Annual prosecution Micromax, Gionee and Intex, 2014 Sue Xiaomi in 2005, 2015 Annual prosecution iBall and Lava. These lawsuits involve 8 It's about mobile standards SEP. similarly, Vringo in 2013 Nian He 2014 Was filed against ZTE in 2000 2 A different lawsuit, Against Asus and its distributor in New Delhi SEP Tort action.

later, Dolby Join in, And based on that SEP For Chinese phone makers Oppo and Vivo Initiate a lawsuit. The cause of these disputes SEP Rise from, Inevitably with the principle of non-discrimination (FRAND) The license terms relate to the license fee payable. There is a growing hope, at least in some cases, India is FRAND The clause sets out some judicial principles.

The Philips case was decided after a lengthy trial, The court relied on licensing agreements between Philips and other manufacturers to determine damages based on licensing fees paid by the defendants, But the court didn't risk making a decision about FRAND The strict legal principle of the clause. As other cases have been settled, The court did not analyze it FRAND Problem of clause, So the judicial review is still pending.

On the other hand, On the move the manufacturer is concerned SEP In the case of the defense measures taken, The trend is consistent. A defendant in a patent case has all the defenses that can be used to revoke a patent, Nearly all defendants in these patent cases have argued that the patents they are accused of infringing are invalid.

India "Patent law" The first 64 The article states the grounds for revoking the patent, And provides that the same argument can be used as a defense in any patent infringement action. These include a lack of novelty, Creativity and inpatentability. An alternative defence is that there is no infringement. The defendant can also claim that material facts were withheld, The technology used by the defendant is covered entirely by another, older patent.

but, in SEP In the case, The defendant will also challenge the patent "necessity" Raise a question. At Ericsson SEP In the case, The defendant entered a plea under competition law. The defendant alleged that the patent holder abused his dominant position, And unfairly impedes the commercialization of proprietary technology. Almost everything mentioned in Ericsson SEP In a tort case, The defendants all complained to the Competition Commission of India, And demanded an investigation into Ericsson's abuse of its dominant position. The Competition Commission of India has yet to make a final decision.

In recent years, India is also seeing an increase in patent cases in the pharmaceutical sector. 2005 years, Indian revision "Patent law" , To allow patents to be granted to drugs, And before that, Patent is process only.

but, 2005 After the introduction of the patented product system, Generic drugs are rising fast, And put them in direct conflict with innovative pharmaceutical companies. This has led to an increase in patent litigation in the pharmaceutical sector, And at the moment almost every 2 One patent infringement case for every one involved a drug.

To sum up, The most recent trend in patent cases is drug patents vs SEP Increase in cases, India's intellectual property system has also evolved in the process. As the number of patent cases increases, Court procedures and patent law are also evolving, And that makes it simpler, Stricter procedural laws, This has greatly reduced the time it takes to hear cases. India also encourages the parties to reach a settlement, Thus reducing the burden on the court.

These trends, though, paint an optimistic picture for patent holders, But the rest of the country still needs to raise patent awareness and strengthen patent litigation.

(Compiled from www. lexorbis. com)

Reprinted from China Intellectual Property Network   translation: Rason group　proofread: Wang Dan

disclaimer: This website reprint articles are from the Internet, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact this website, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.