Replication: The reply must be submitted, first briefly summarizing the plaintiff`s case and the defendant`s case. This is followed by a response to the written declaration. If one of the prior art documents cited by the defendant has also been taken into account during the patent grant or opposition proceedings, the details of the patent must be included in the reproduction. Until April 4, 2021, India had three-tier dispute resolution systems for IPR matters, which included IP offices at the first level, the Intellectual Property Appeal Board (IPAB) at the second level, and the courts at the highest level. IPAB had the power to revoke IP rights and control the creation and existence of unauthorized IP rights. IPAB has also acted as the sole appellate body against decisions of various IP offices, including decisions denying protection. These powers have now been transferred to the High Courts. After the dissolution of IPAB, more than 3000 cases were to be transferred to the Delhi Supreme Court alone, and in order to effectively manage such a large number of cases, a committee consisting of Madam Justice Pratibha M Singh and Honourable Justice Sanjeev Narula, was formed by the Honourable Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. make recommendations for the management of IP issues as a whole. Based on the recommendations of this committee, the Honourable Chief Justice issued a Office Order on July 7, 2021 and established an Intellectual Property Division (Intellectual Property Division) at the Delhi High Court, a first in the entire country. This IP department deals with all matters related to intellectual property rights, including new and ongoing IP infringement proceedings and pending issues before the former IPAB.

These include appeals against decisions of the Patent, Trademark and Copyright Office, revocation/cancellation actions, and requests for rectification of patents/trademark registers. Infringement Brief: The plaintiff must provide an interpretation of the claim and compare the elements of each claim with those of the defendant`s product or process and indicate how it infringes the claimed claims. In the case of infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEP), the infringement letter must match the patent claims to the standard and specify how the defendant infringes the patent claims. In other words, a comparison of the defendant`s claims, standard and claims must be mapped and an analysis provided with respect to the infringement. Taking into account pleadings, submissions, nullity, infringement and damages/benefits, the court can identify the real problems and locate disputes between the parties. The court may have recourse to the assistance of a technical expert from among the advisory councils it maintains or call upon an expert of the parties to assist it. If necessary, a hot tub can also be used. If evidence is deemed necessary, the court orders the parties to submit their list of witnesses, including the names of experts, and to file affidavits. The court shall order the order in which the proceedings are to be conducted, i.e.: h.

The court determines whether to first bring an action for infringement or invalidity. The Court may order the production of evidence on any matter likely to expedite the processing of the case. There are a total of 40 rules and two schedules. The rules include definitions, appeal procedures, initial applications, written requests, allegations, taking of evidence, intervention of third parties, summary decisions, general clauses, guidelines for written submissions and time limits for oral submissions, costs, appeals against IPR decisions, etc. It is clear that the procedures and mechanisms proposed in the Delhi High Court Rules for Patent Actions – 2022 are aimed at expediting the resolution of cases. The IPD is the first of its kind in India and was established by the Delhi High Court following the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in 2021. The task of the IPD is to deal expeditiously with intellectual property issues such as objections, petitions, revocation and annulment actions, among others. More than 3,000 IP-related cases were transferred from IPAB to the Delhi High Court after IPAB was abolished.

The RPI is also designed to streamline the resolution of other IP disputes. The Delhi High Court Rules Governing Patent Prosecutions, 2022 also divide the trial proceedings into three management hearings followed by a final hearing. According to Yadav, there has been a wave of patent litigation in Indian courts in recent years, with Delhi being a hot spot. The problem is that litigation in India is notoriously time-consuming and time is of the essence when it comes to intellectual property issues, especially patents. “The technology is time-sensitive and the economic value of the patented technology is undermined over time,” she explained. “It is expected that the creation of the RPI and special rules for patent litigation will lead to a quick and efficient resolution of cases. The establishment of a specialized IP chamber in the Delhi High Court and the streamlining of the patent litigation procedure are also in line with global practice. It will increase the judicial exposure and competence of patent law. All this is aimed at improving the quality and consistency of the patent jurisdiction in India,” she added. Espie Angelica A. de Leon Invalidity certificate: The letter of invalidity must contain references to the state of the art, in which the relevant paragraphs No., page No. or columns are quoted on a page that is supposed to anticipate or suggest claims, and an analysis should be provided to show how novelty or inventive step is destroyed.

In case of non-patentability under Article 3 or 4 of the Act, a reasoned statement must be submitted. The case law cited can also be clarified. Where invalidity is invoked on the basis of Articles 64(h) and 64(i), the procedural document must clearly indicate the claims which are not sufficiently disclosed or which are not substantiated or activated in the description. The inadequacy in relation to any claim can be stated with an explanation. If the disability is based on another ground, the conditions and reasons for the disability must be stated in a simple manner. If one of the grounds for revocation has been dealt with by the Patent Office, reference should be made to it. If a counterclaim is filed under Article 105 for non-infringement, the requirements of the Section must be met. It is worth mentioning that Article 105 allows any person to file a claim for a statement that his use of a process or product does not constitute or would not constitute an infringement of a patent claim against a patent owner or the holder of an exclusive licensee.