DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

LUCKNOW
2018-2019

FINAL DRAFT
TOPIC: “PATENT SPECIFICATION: RULE FOR ITS
INTERPRETATION”

SUBJECT: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS LAW-II

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. Vikas Bhati Vipin Kumar Verma

Dr. RMLNLU, LUCKNOW Enroll no.150101163

VIII SEMESTER

B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

 CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 4
2. PATENT SPECIFICATION: AN INDICATION ............................................................................................. 5
3. OVERVIEW OF INDIAN PATENT SPECIFICATION.................................................................................... 6
4. SUFFICIENCY OF DISCLOSURE IN INDIAN PROVISIONAL SPECIFICATION.............................................. 7
5. ANALYSIS OF SECTION 10(4) OF INDIAN PATENT ACT, 1970 ................................................................ 8
6. INTERPRETATION OF PATENT CLAIMS .................................................................................................. 8
7. PATENT SPECIFICATION AND ANTICIPATION UNDER SECTION 31(D) ................................................ 10
8. THE DEVELOPMENT OF PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION: AS A RULE FOR PATENT SPECIFICATION........ 13
9. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................... 15
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express the deepest appreciation to the Professor (Law) “Dr. Vikas Bhati” sir
who gave me the opportunity to work on this wonderful research topic. He has also shown the
attitude and the substance of a genius; he continually and persuasively conveyed a spirit of
adventure in regard to research and an excitement in regard to teaching. Without his supervision
and constant help this study would not have been possible.

I would like to express my gratitude towards my parents and my colleagues for their kind co-
operation and encouragement which helped me in completion of this project. I would like to
extend my sincere thanks to all of them.

I am highly indebted to library of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University for
providing necessary information regarding the project.

THANK YOU

NIHARIKA YADAV
 1. INTRODUCTION

An invention is patentable provided it meets three fundamentals of patentability, which are

novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. In order to inquire about monopoly,
applicants need to reveal technical information pertinent to these three pre-requisites in a patent
specification. The patent application is then filed with Patent Office for necessary examination.
The effect of the grant of a patent is bases on something we call “this for that” (quid pro quo).
“This” is the knowledge disclosed to public and “that” is the monopoly granted for a term of
patent. After twenty years of monopoly, the information provided in patent specification is
opened to the public to make use of it. The term “sufficiency of disclosure” refers to adequacy of
pertinent information to be provided in the specification to enable an average skilled person to
perform the invention. It is stated in Halsbury’s Law that insufficiency of description has two
brushwood, a) complete specification must describe an embodiment of the invention claimed in
each of the claims and that the description must be sufficient to enable those in the industry
concerned to carry it into effect without their making further inventions; and b) that the
explanation must be fair i.e. it must not be needlessly difficult to follow.1

Numerous applicants are connoisseurs in their relevant field of technology and are very good in
writing and publishing scientific articles. A patent is a techno-legal document, which involve
protection for technical aspects through legal means. It involves meeting various legal
requirements in drafting which is slightly different from one jurisdiction to another. After filing
patent application (complete specification in India) with Patent Office, examiners at Patent
Office examine and raise various formal and technical objections. One such formal objection is
insufficient description of the invention. During examination stage, it is very difficult or
impossible for the inventors or authors to add additional experimental data or information into
the specification. That’s how patent which is a techno legal document differs from an ordinary
scientific article.

1
Halsbury, 3rd edn. Vol. 29 p. 66 para 138.
 2. PATENT SPECIFICATION: AN INDICATION

In patenting, an invention, the applicant for the patent must disclose his invention to the
authority. Therefore a patented goods or articles are open and available to the public, though they
are produced legally, from using it till the patent grant or monopoly period expires. The
specification and claims of a patent, particularly if the invention be at all complicated, constitutes
one of the most difficult legal instruments to draw with accuracy; and, in view of the fact that
valuable inventions are often placed in the hands of inexperienced person to prepare such
specifications and claims, it is not a matter of surprise that the latter frequently fail to describe
with requisite certainty the exact invention of the patentee, and err either in claiming that which
the patentee had not in fact invented, or in omitting some element which was a valuable or
essential part of his actual invention. The contents of a patent specification, also called as ‘the
disclosure’, are the ‘written description’ of an invention. The layout of specification varies from
place to place, however the essence of contents of specification is same throughout the world,
because disclosure of specification is the basis to establish novelty and non obviousness of an
invention which is essential for grant of patent. Moreover, if any dispute arises, the Court of Law
would settle the case based on contents of specification and the claims. Section-10 of Indian
Patent Act, 1970 defines the contents of specification; although it is not an exhaustive guideline
to patent applicants, it gives an outline as to the layout of specification to express the technical
output of invention into written description.
 3. OVERVIEW OF INDIAN PATENT SPECIFICATION

Section 10 and Rule 13 of the Act mainly deal with inside of specification. Accordingly, every
patent specification, whether provisional2 or complete3 starts its first page with Form 2 having
title (Preamble of claim 1), name, nationality and address of the applicant. Another point to be
provided in Form 2 is preamble to the description, if it is provisional specification then the
preamble is the following specification describes the invention and if it is complete, the preamble
is the following specification particularly describes the invention and the manner in which it is to
be performed. Page 2 of the specification will start with Field of the invention followed by
background and prior art, objectives, brief description of the accompanying drawings if any,
statement of invention, detailed description of invention, claims in a fresh page followed by an
abstract in a fresh page and drawings if any at the end. 4 The adequacy of information pertaining
to invention is usually provided under detailed description of the invention, which can be
explained in various embodiments or can even be provided as examples.5

2
A provisional application is usually filed to establish priority of the invention in case, the disclosed invention is
only at a conceptual stage and a delay is expected in submitting full and specific description of the invention.
Although, a patent application accompanied with provisional application does not confer any legal patent rights to
the applicants, it is however, a very important document to establish the earliest ownership of an invention. The
provisional application is a permanent and independent scientific cum legal document and no amendment is allowed
in this.
3
The contents of complete specification filed after the provisional specification should be substantially based the
matter described in the provisional specification and it should be written in greater details and with more clarity. A
complete specification, which follows a provisional specification, does not replace the latter. Both are permanent
and independent documents. Thus, a complete specification should furnish the detailed description of the invention
as described in the provisional application.
4
Draft Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure, The Indian Patent Office, 41,53,103-108, www.patentoffice.nic.in
5
Sufficiency of Disclosure in Patent Specification, Maram Suresh Gupta, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights,
Vol 14, July 2009, pp 307-316
 4. SUFFICIENCY OF DISCLOSURE IN INDIAN PROVISIONAL
SPECIFICATION

Based on the availability of information, a patent specification can be filed either as a provisional
specification or as a complete specification (non-provisional in US). To decide whether the
specification needs to be filed as provisional or complete, it is recommended to applicants with
insufficient experience in patent law and prosecution to consult an experienced Patent Attorney
in the field of technology to which the invention belongs. The Act is silent with respect to
adequacy of disclosure to be provided in a provisional specification. Generally, a provisional
specification is recommended in a scenario where invention lacks sufficient information or
where time is required for inventors to generate more experimental data. As a general rule, a
time-line of 12 months from filing date of provisional specification is provided by almost all
patent offices across the world to file provisional as a complete specification, may be with an
exception of Singapore .
The primary reason for silence of the Act might be that provisional applications are not subject to
examination by Patent Office. Another reason could be that they are merely filed by applicants to
block priority date. However, it is recommended that a provisional specification should disclose
best mode of performance known to inventor at the time of filing6. On the contrary, best mode
known to the inventor may change over a period of time. It may happen that the best mode at the
time of complete application may be different from the best mode known at the provisional filing
date.
Once a complete Indian patent specification is filed, it is impossible to add new or additional
data into filed patent application. Therefore, it is recommended that one should provide all
necessary information in the complete specification at the time of filing itself. Another aspect is
that the information provided in the complete specification should enable Person Having
Ordinary Skill in the Art [PHOSITA] or Person Skilled in the Art [PSA] or person with an
average skill in the art to perform and make use of it. Failure in providing sufficient information
in patent specification would attract objections from patent examiners during prosecution. For all
practical purposes, the patent examiner or controller of patents should view patent application as

6
Sufficiency of Disclosure in Patent Specification, Maram Suresh Gupta, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights,
Vol 14, July 2009, pp 307-316
viewed by the PSA or average skilled person.
It is suggested to applicants to ensure that the invention described in the specification is
essentially the best method of performing the invention. Additionally, it should enable PSA to
perform it in yet another aspect, Section 10(4) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970, particularly deals
with contents of specification, and lists out features to be covered in a complete specification.
Drafting complete patent specification in compliance with this section helps in overcoming the
objections/ rejections raised by patent examiners during prosecution.7

5. ANALYSIS OF SECTION 10(4) OF INDIAN PATENT ACT, 1970

Acceding to section 10(4), every complete specification should:

(a) Fully and particularly describe the invention and its operation or use and the method by
which it is to be performed;
(b) Disclose the best method of performing the invention which is known to the applicant and
for which he is entitled to claim protection; and
(c) End with a claim or claims defining the scope of the invention for which protection is
claimed.
(d) Be accompanied by an abstract to provide technical information on the invention.

6. INTERPRETATION OF PATENT CLAIMS

While claims provide information on the boundaries of patent protection, claims by themselves,
without any further evaluation, fail to fully convey these boundaries to those who need to use
them to make patent decisions. As previously noted, the definition of the protected invention is
needed to make most determinations regarding the patent grant. Issues of infringement and
validity of the patented invention can be resolved only after the exact scope of exclusivity of the

7
Ibid
patent is determined.8 While claims are meant to define this exclusivity, they must be interpreted
to place them into a “meaningful context” for a given dispute.9Words standing alone cannot
convey the full meaning of a patent claim.10 Just as with other legal instruments, claims must be
interpreted to be useable by an observer or court. To fully appreciate the scope of protection, the
patent claim’s meaning must be ascertained11.Claim interpretation, also known as claim
construction, is the defining of a claim’s terms in order to get the exact meaning of the claim.
Once a claim’s meaning is determined, the exact location of the patent’s metes and bounds are
known and issues of infringement or validity can be determined. Claim interpretation is,
therefore, the first step in any patent inquiry. Interpreting claim terms is the starting point for
resolving most patent issues. And, in most instances, claim interpretation is also the stopping
point. Claim interpretation is outcome determinative in most patent cases.12
Thus, while claims provide boundary information regarding the protected invention, this
boundary information must be processed further to fully appreciate the scope of the invention. A
claim interpretation methodology—a way of interpreting the patent claim—must be employed to
understand the limits of protection. More information must be gathered and processed than just a
reading of the patent claim. Ways of construing claims can differ, and these differences center
around what information can be used and how it is used to determine a claim’s meaning.
The current methods of interpreting patent claims find their roots in the Supreme Court’s
decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.13In that case, the Supreme Court held that
matters of claim interpretation are in the sole province of the court.14From there, the Federal
Circuit, the exclusive court for patent appeals15, has interpreted claims de novo, starting anew

8
Scott R. Boalick, Patent Quality and the Dedication Rule, 11 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 215, 228 (2004).
9
R. Polk Wagner & Lee Petherbridge, Is the Federal Circuit Succeeding? An Empirical Assessment of Judicial
Performance, 152 U. PA. L. REV. 1105, 1117 (2004); see also Cass R. Sunstein, Principles, Not Fictions, 57 U.
CHI. L. REV. 1247, 1247 (1990) (“The meaning of any ‘text’ is a function not of the bare words, but of its context
and the relevant culture.”).
10
Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 396 (Ct. Cl. 1967) (“Claims cannot be clear and
unambiguous on their face.”); Kitch, supra note 4, at 268 (noting that a claim is “an abstraction and generalization”).
11
Sufficiency of Disclosure in Patent Specification, Maram Suresh Gupta, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights,
Vol 14, July 2009, pp 307-316
12
Markman, 52 F.3d at 993 (Mayer, J., concurring) (“Where the parties do not dispute any relevant facts regarding
the accused product . . . but disagree over possible claim interpretations, the question of literal infringement
collapses into claim construction and is amenable to summary judgment.”); Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Hunt-Wesson, Inc.,
103 F.3d 978, 983 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
13
517 U.S. 370 (1996).
14
Ibid
15
U.S.C. § 1295(a) (2000). This exclusive appellate jurisdiction, particularly over cases where the only patent claim
is in a counterclaim, has come into question since the Supreme Court’s decision in Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado
when reviewing any question as to a claim’s meaning. This has allowed the court to focus on the
particulars of claim interpretation.16Since the Markman decision, questions concerning claim
interpretation methodologies have centered on the use of information in the specification and use
of outside resources such as dictionaries to define claim terms.17The Federal Circuit has recently
taken the issue of claim interpretation methodology en banc in Phillips v. AWH Corp. in an
attempt to identify a single approach.18

7. PATENT SPECIFICATION AND ANTICIPATION UNDER SECTION 31(D)

With regard to Patent Application, the Indian Patents Act provides the same kind of grace time
that the US Patents Act provides to its patent applicants. Section 102 of the US Act provides for
a one year grace period under which, even if the invention disclosed in a patent specification is
published not earlier than a year before the filing of the patent, it does not anticipate the
application19. It must be pointed out that Section 102 of the US Act does not limit publication to
any forum or manner, which is to say it is wide in its amplitude. Indian Act proves to be much
more restrictive than its US counterpart; nevertheless, this was worth a harder look.
Indian Patent Act’s section 31 (d) states that an invention shall not be deemed to have been
anticipated by reason only of the description of the invention in a paper read by the true and first
inventor before a “learned society” or published with his consent in the “transactions of such a

Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (2002). See, e.g., Christopher A. Cotropia, “Arising Under” Jurisdiction
and Uniformity in Patent Law, 9 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 253 (2003).
16
Wagner & Petherbridge, supra note 104, at 1122–24 (concluding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Markman
mandated the Federal Circuit to develop legal rules to govern the process of claim interpretation).
17
Ibid at 1133–36 (noting two different approaches to claim interpretation—the holistic and procedural approach—
that differ in their use of the specification and outside definitional sources); see also James R. Barney, In Search of
“Ordinary Meaning,” 85 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC’Y 101, 105–06 (2003); John M. Romary & Arie M.
Michelsohn, Patent Claim Interpretation After Markman: How the Federal Circuit Interprets Claims, 46 AM. U. L.
REV. 1887, 1897–1926 (1997). The two approaches, to a lesser extent, differ in their usage of the patent’s
prosecution history. The use of the prosecution history in claim interpretation and the associated information costs
are beyond the scope of this Article.
18
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 376 F.3d 1382, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam) (“Phillips II”). This would,
potentially, rectify the current divide among the Federal Circuit’s opinions on the methodology to apply when
interpreting patent claims. See Wagner & Petherbridge, supra note 104, at 1171–74.
19
Trends in IP Patents filed in India: An Analysis, Yogesh Suman and V.K. Gupta, Journal of Intellectual Property
Rights, Vol. 14, March 2009, pp 149-152
society”, if the application for the patent is made by the true and first inventor or a person
deriving title from him not later than twelve months after... the reading or publication of the
paper, as the case may be.
Neither is the word “learned society” defined in the Act nor the word “transaction”. But merely
because these terms are not defined, one cannot bring anything and everything under the sun.
One needs to impute both these terms specific meanings which are restrictive so that they do not
militate against the legislative intent reflected in its choice of such words20. Why? How would it
be wrong to give them a broad interpretation? Also, is subjectivity necessarily synonymous with
untrammeled leeway?
Let’s take a look at related provisions to understand the role of Section 31 in particular and
chapter VI (Anticipation) of the Act in general, vis-a-vis the other provisions in the Act21.
Section 13(2) of the Act, which speaks of search for anticipation by previous publication,
requires the examiner to make an investigation to ascertain if the invention disclosed in the
complete specification has been anticipated by publication in India or elsewhere in any document
other than the ones mentioned in Section 13(1) (which refers to complete patent specifications
published in India). How is this relevant to Section 31(d)? It is relevant because Chapter VI
(which includes Section 31) carves an exception to anticipatory documents envisaged under
Section 13(2). What this means is that the documents mentioned in Section 31(d) too would have
been anticipatory had they not been deemed as exceptions to anticipation by virtue of Section 31.
This is evidenced by the fact that Section 34 clearly states that circumstances not covered under
Section 29-33 would be anticipatory to the patent specification.
Therefore, for one to avail the benefit of Chapter VI, he would have to fall within the instances
spelt out therein. Not just that, since the definition of anticipation under our Act is down beating;
it must be given a restrictive interpretation22. This is the difference between defining something
positively and negatively. Further, if Section 31 was meant to be read independent of Section 13,
Section 31 would have begun with a non-obstante clause (“Notwithstanding anything...). Also, if
Section 31 was to play a prevailing role, Section 13 would have started with a “Subject to

20
Patent Specification: Engineering the Technical Output of Novel Invention, Anjana Baruah, Journal of Intellectual
Property Rights, Vol. 14, September 2009, pp 423-431
21
Trends in IP Patents filed in India: An Analysis, Yogesh Suman and V.K. Gupta, Journal of Intellectual Property
Rights, Vol. 14, March 2009, pp 149-152
22
Sufficiency of Disclosure in Patent Specification, Maram Suresh Gupta, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights,
Vol. 14, July 2009, pp 307-316
 anything...” But then, in the absence of either of these clauses, how are we to read them together
(“construction”)? The utterance “learned society” in general refers to a peer group formed for the
purpose of promotion of knowledge and scholarship in a particular field of endeavor. The critical
pointer here is the word “transaction” since it tells us that for the publication to be non-
prejudicial/non-anticipatory, it must be in the nature of a transaction. The word transaction is not
superfluous or paraphernalia, it is the key for it in fact serves to characterize the nature of
interaction of the learned society which is non-anticipatory to the patent application23.
This should ideally lead one to ask if the use of the words “learned society” and “transactions”
have origins which go beyond the Act. Section 51 of the erstwhile UK Patents Act, 1949
contained an identical provision. Sub-section 2 of section 51 read as follows:
“An invention claimed . . . shall not be deemed to have been anticipated by reason only of—(d)
the description of the invention in a paper read by the true and first inventor before a learned
society or published with his consent in the transactions of such a society”24It is significant to
make a note of that the UK Act too did not contain definitions for “learned society” and
“transactions”, but that did not deter UK Courts from interpreting these terms in a rationally
restrictive manner.

In Ethyl Corporation’s Patent (1963 RPC155) and Ralph M. Parsons Application (1978 FSR
226), the width of the definitions was at issue and it was held thus:

a) The phrase “learned society” has not been defined, not because it can be used to bring anything
within its ambit, but merely because the legislature did not deem it wise to identify a qualitative
threshold for learning.

b) To make certain that the nonattendance of threshold does not lead to an unnecessary broad
interpretation, the word transaction was used instead of publication.

23
Ibid
24
Patent Specification: Engineering the Technical Output of Novel Invention, Anjana Baruah, Journal of Intellectual
Property Rights, Vol. 14, September 2009, pp 423-431
c) As for what comprises transaction, I quote the latter judgment- “An indispensable precondition
of a publication, if it is to be regarded as “transactions” is that it should be published under the
sponsorship of and finally be the accountability of the Association—the learned society—whose
organ of publication it is.”
d) Such transactions are meant for the personal utilization of all the members of the learned society
as a recordable of their proceedings, and which are not published for consumption by non-
members in return for a fee or otherwise. Stated otherwise, if such transactions are made public
to anyone who is not a member of such a society, either free or for a fee, it would no more
remain a mere transaction and in fact would qualify as anticipatory publication. Consequently,
let’s suppose, if an article is published in any journal, although it may be published by a learned
society, it is not a transaction of the learned society and hence would serve as prejudicial
disclosure/anticipatory prior art. This is clearly evidenced from the wording of Section 31(d),
which says "published in the transactions of a society" and not "publication of the
transactions of the society". A simpler way of looking at Section 31(d) is as follows- if what
would have been read before the members of the society is published exclusively for the profit of
the members of the general public, it is a deal. Everything else would be anticipatory publication.

8. THE DEVELOPMENT OF PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION: AS A RULE

FOR PATENT SPECIFICATION

Before the landmark decision of House of Lords in Catnic vs. Hill and Smith, infringement was
approached in two ways. First, if the alleged infringement fell within the strict literal meaning of
the claims and embodied every integer there recited, there was said to be “textual infringement”.
However, the law never restricted the patentee’s monopoly to the strict language of the claims so
as to enable a potential infringer to avoid infringement by incorporating immaterial variations.
This led to the development of the so called “Pith and Marrow” doctrine which was established
through the cases.25

25
As mentioned in Terrell on the law of patens, Simon Thorley, Richard Miller.
In Catnic case, Lord Diplock laid out an approach to construction of patent claims, the purposive
approach is as follows26:

“My Lords, a patent specification is a unilateral statement by the patentee, in words of his
own choosing, addressed to those likely to have a practical interest in the subject matter of
his invention, by which he informs them what he claims to be essential features of the new
product or process for which the letters patent grant him monopoly. A patent specification
should be given a purposive construction rather than a purely literal one derived from
applying to it the kind of meticulous verbal analysis in which lawyers are too often tempted
by their training indulges”.

Hence, a claim is to be construed without reference to the alleged infringement; it should be

construed “as if we had to construe it before the Defendant was born”. 27 The objective of the
exercise is to determine the true scope of the claims as they would have been read at the date of
publication of the specification without knowledge of particular allegedly infringement acts.
Once the true scope of the monopoly has been determined, the question of whether the alleged
infringement falls within its scope will depend upon the facts proved28.

Application of principle of “purposive construction” will however, inevitably give rise to

questions of fact which may involve consideration of the nature of the alleged infringement.
Although the construction has to be determined without reference to the infringement, in practice
the court does, and must know what the alleged infringement is.

26
[1982] RPC 183 at 242-243, As mentioned in Terrell on the law of patens, Simon Thorley, Richard Miller.
27
Nobel’s Explosive vs. Anderson [1894] 11 RPC 519 at 523, As mentioned in Terrell on the law of patens, Simon
Thorley, Richard Miller
28
Terrell on the law of patens, Simon Thorley, Richard Miller
 9. CONCLUSION

The applicant if required need to approach a Patent Agent/ Attorney before filing the patent
application. Filing of provisional or complete specification has to be decided based on the
information available with the inventors. A decision to file provisional specification can be taken
provided if the applicant/ inventors are confident of arriving at necessary information within 12
months from the date of filing of provisional. Failure in filing complete does not pose any
problem to applicant/inventor as filed provisional specification remains as a secret document
with IPO. This aspect is same across various patent jurisdictions. The only loss could be loss of
priority. This is vital for companies which have commercial commitments. Hence, a fair decision
needs to be taken by them in such circumstances. With regard to the Interpretation of Patent
Specification, Purposive construction, should be followed as it is a principle of construction of
the claim language, and does not entitle the court to rewrite or amend the claim in the guise of
construing it. As it was put by Lord Sutherland in Conoco vs. Merpro Montassa29; while a
purposive construction is necessary, it must be borne in mind that this is indented to be a method
of construction and not an excuse for not construing the claims at all”. Such an unfettered
approach would be at the expense of any degree of certainty to third parties. In the end, the
question is whether the absence of a feature mentioned in the claim is “an immaterial variant
which a person skilled in the trade would have regarded as being within the ambit of the
language. It is therefore submitted that Lord Diplock’s approach to purposive construction does
of itself and without more satisfy the requirements of the protocol. The claim should be read as it
would be read and understood by “persons with practical knowledge and experience of the kind
of work in which the invention as intended to used”, and not applying a purely literal
construction derived from applying to it the kind of meticulous verbal analysis in which lawyers
are too often tempted by their meaning to indulge.

29 [1994] FSR 99 at 106 As mentioned in Terrell on the law of patens, Simon Thorley, Richard Miller.
Bibliography
Books

1. Catherine Colston & Kirsty Middleton, ‘Modern Intellectual Property Law’, (United
Kingdom: Cavendish Publishing:2nd ed., 2005)
2. Elizabeth Verkey, ‘Law of Patents’, (New Delhi: Eastern Book Co.: 1st ed., 2005)
3. L. Bently & B. Sherman, ‘Intellectual Property Law’, (New York: Oxford University
Press: 2001)
4. N R Subbaram, ‘Demystifying Intellectual Property Rights’, (Nagpur: Wadhwa and Co.:
1st ed., 2009)
5. N S Gopalkrishnan & T G Agitha, ‘Principles of Intellectual Property Law’, (Lucknow:
Eastern Book Co.: 2009)
6. P Narayanan, ‘Patent Law’, (New Delhi: Eastern Law House: 3rd ed., 1998)

7. Simon Thorley; Richard Miller Terrell on the Law of Patents, Sweet and Maxwell,
London, 2010

8. V. Elizabeth; Law of Patents; Eastern Book Company; Lucknow; 1st ed; 2005;
9. William L. Anthony, JR. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Menlo Park; International
Patent Law; Winning Legal Strategies for Registration, Litigation & Other Intricacies of
Patent Law In All Major Markets: 2004

Journal Articles
1. Patent Infringement: How to Minimize the Risk, Amit Singh, Journal of Intellectual
Property Rights, Vol. 13, July 2008, pp 351-353
2. Modern Patenting: Quality and Quantity, Kilburn and Strode, Journal of Intellectual
Property Rights, Vol.12, November 2007, pp 562-571
3. Patent Activity by Patents Agents in India, Manish Shridhar, Journal of Intellectual
Property Rights, Vol. 14, March 2009, pp 142-148
4. Trends in IP Patents filed in India: An Analysis, Yogesh Suman and V.K. Gupta, Journal
of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol. 14, March 2009, pp 149-152
5. Sufficiency of Disclosure in Patent Specification, Maram Suresh Gupta, Journal of
Intellectual Property Rights, Vol. 14, July 2009, pp 307-316
6. Patent Specification: Engineering the Technical Output of Novel Invention, Anjana
Baruah, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol. 14, September 2009, pp 423-431
7. The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 and TRIPS Compliance- A Critique, Manoj Pillai,
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol. 12, September 2005, pp 413-418