Mukesh kumar Narayan User id -mukesh 25053

Ans 1. The rationale behind grant for patent protection are as follows:
( i) The exclusive right to commercially exploit an invention provides the patent owner with the legal right to stop others from making, using, or selling the patented (i.e. claimed) invention and the right to collect damages for any such unlawful activity - so long as the patent (i.e. the claims) is not found invalid. Obtaining this exclusive right is the fundamental motivation for seeking a patent and affords several benefits to the patent owner.

( ii) Most inventions involve considerable research and development (R&D)investment and efforts. Patenting an invention serves to prevent competitors from simply copying or reverse engineering the invention and thereby appropriating those R&D efforts for their own benefit. Furthermore, even if a competitor independently develops the same invention at a later stage, the patent may be used to stop the competitor's entry into the market. Thus, a patent helps insure that the payoff from R&D and the patent owner's competitive advantage are maximized. (iii) Patents are also valuable for generating interest and investment in new and growing businesses. This is particularly important for companies attempting to establish themselves in high-tech industries. Start-up companies are often based on the development of a specific new, sometimes potentially ground-breaking, technology. Without securing rights for their technology, these companies may find themselves unable to obtain sufficient resources to bring that technology to market. Patents may also be licensed to other parties allowing these parties to exploit the invention in exchange for royalty payments. ( iv) A patent serves as a readily accessible public record of the innovative developments made and owned by the patent owner. The existence of a patent may serve as a warning to competitors to stay clear of a protected technology. In addition, a patent stakes out a patentee's technological territory, precluding others who develop technology at a later stage from attempting to claim or patent that technology as their own.

Ans 2. Section 3(d), non-patentable inventions are the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant. Traditional knowledge is culturally oriented or culturally based, and it is integral to the cultural identity of the social group in which it operates and is preserved. In India patenting traditional knowledge is not allowed under the Patent law. According to section 3(p) of the Indian Patent

act, an invention which, in effect, is traditional knowledge or which is an aggregation or duplication of knowledge properties of traditionally known component or components is not considered an invention under the act. However, India has taken several measures for protecting traditional knowledge. India is party to CBD. India has already enacted an act to provide for protection of biological diversity, sustainable use of components and equitable benefits arising out of the use of biological resources India has initiated an attempt to document traditional knowledge in a written as well as electronic form by means of peoples diversity register (PBR) and means of traditional knowledge digital register (TKDL) .TKDL allows access to patent offices around the world to search for prior art in the traditional knowledge domain so that patents are not erroneously granted, thereby acting as defensive tool against erroneously grant of IPR. Ans 3. Revocation means cancellation of the rights granted to a person by the grant of a patent. The patent can be revoked on petition of any person interested or of the Central Government or on a counter claim in a suit for infringement of the patent by the High court or on the grounds mentioned under section 64. A patent granted by the controller may be revoked by High court except under section 65 and section 66, in the following manner: Under section 64 the following persons may petition the high court for revocation of patent, namely: a) Any person interested b) The central Government c) The person making a counter claim in a suit for the infringement of patent. Section 64 enumerates various grounds on the basis of which petition can be filed for revocation of patent .These grounds may relate to-a)patentee and his conduct, b)invention and his qualities, and c)description of invention. Revocation of patent in relation to Atomic Energy (section 65) In case of inventions relating to atomic energy, section 4 clearly forbids grant of patent .However, if any patent has been erroneously granted, the Central Government may direct the controller to revoke the patent after giving opportunity of hearing to patentee.
Ans 4. The Patent cooperation Treaty is an international agreement for filing patent applications,

which has become in to force to enable to file a patent application under the treaty, so that an invention can be protected simultaneously in a larger number of countries without losing the rights of priority. The patent cooperation treaty (PCT) is a multilateral treaty entered into force in 1978. Through PCT, an inventor of a member country (Contracting state of PCT) can simultaneously obtain priority for his/her Invention in all/ any of the member countries, without having to file a separate application in the countries of interest , by designating them in the PCT application .India joined the PCT on December 7, 1998. SIGNIFICANCE

In order to protect your invention in other countries, you are required to file an independent patent application in each country of interest; in some cases , within a stipulated time to obtain priority in these countries .This would entail a large investment, within a short time, to meet costs towards filing fees, translation, attorney charges etc. In addition you are making an assumption which, due to the short time available for making the decision on whether to file a patent application in a country or not , may not be well founded . Inventors of Contracting States of PCT on the other hand can simultaneously obtain priority for their inventions without having to file separate application in the countries of interest ; thus saving the initial investments towards filing fees, translation etc. In addition the system provides much longer time for filing patent application in member countries. The time available under Paris Convention for securing priority in other countries is 12 months from the date of initial filing. Under the PCT, the time available could be as much as minimum 20 and maximum 31 months. Further, an inventor is also benefited by the search report prepared under the PCT system to be sure that the claimed invention is novel. The inventor could also opt for preliminary examination before filing in other countries to be doubly sure about the patentability of the invention. Ans 5.Infringement is an unauthorized or prohibited use of a right owners exclusive intellectual property right, yet suffers through violation of law. Relief available in an action for infringement are: According to section 108 if the plaintiff is able to prove the infringement by defendant, the court may grant following reliefs: a) Injunction whether interlocutory or final. b) Final Injunction. c) ) Damages or Account of profits. d) Delivery up or destruction of infringing goods.

a) Injunction: The plaintiff may at the commencement of the suit or any time during the suit, move the court for grant of an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from committing and continuing to commit the acts of alleged infringement. b) Final Injunction: Such injunction is granted at the conclusion of the suit. The final injunction will remain in force till the remaining term of the patent .But when the infringement relates to a patent endorsed as license or right, no injunction will be granted if the defendant is willing to take a license. c) Damages or of Profits: Plaintiff may be awarded either of the two. Both cannot be awarded together. The damages may be awarded to compensate for the loss or injury suffered by plaintiff due to the action of defendant. Whereas, the accounts of profits is determined on the basis of actual use of patentees invention by the infringer during the period of commission of the act or infringement. However ,in cases where infringement

was committed during lapse of patent or before date of amendment of specification, the damages or accounts of profit may not be granted. d) Delivery up or destruction of infringing goods: An order for delivery up or destruction is made with a view to prevent the defendant from making use of the infringing articles which might be in his possession. It is discretionary order. The property in the articles which are made in violation of patent resides in the infringer though he is prevented from using them.

CASE LAW: M.C. jayasingh V.Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited(MIDHANI) Bajaj Auto Ltd. V. TVS Motor Company Ltd.

ss