Skip to main content

The Delhi High Court recently delivered a judgment regarding the procedure to be followed in patent infringement lawsuits. A brief summary of the findings of the court:

  1. An expert cannot give evidence beyond the scope of pleadings.
  2. When documents are being filed, there should be a report by the technical expert, not necessarily in the form of an affidavit, which enumerates the essential points to be made by the expert.
  3. In cases where an expert report is not filed, as long as the deposition of the expert is within the confines of the pleadings no difficulty will arise.
  4. Such an expert remains a witness of the party litigant examining her/him, and whom the party opposite has a right to cross-examine.
  5. Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) requires a plaint (as a counter-claim is) to contain facts constituting the cause of action. Thus, a party litigant defending a claim for infringement of patent on the ground of it being liable to be revoked (on one of the grounds under Section 64 of the Patents Act 1970) would be required to plead particulars of that ground.
  6. A written statement to such counter-claim would require the patentee to plead why the invention is inventive. Merely pleading its non-obviousness or that it entails an inventive step would not constitute a defence.
  7. The issues in a case should be detailed and clearly defined, not general; and should crystallize the real issue in controversy.
  8. The onus of invalidity of the patent is on the defendant and the defendant should lead evidence on that issue in the first instance.
  9. The Bench recommended to the Chief Justice to refer this case to the Rules Committee (under Section 123 CPC) for framing of rules as to the conduct and procedure of in respect of proceedings before the court under the Patents Act.

The court was hearing applications in a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking to restrain the defendants from infringing its drug patent. The defendants had submitted that an affidavit filed by an expert witness, along with supporting documents, went beyond the scope of plaintiff’s pleadings.

F.Hoffmann-La-Roche Ltd. & Anr. v. Dr. Reddys & Anr, and F.Hoffmann-La-Roche Ltd. & Anr. v Natco; before the Delhi High Court; Order dated 21.03.2017

Most Recent

News & Insights

VIEW ALL
Thought Leadership
Apr 12, 2025

‘First Published by Managing IP‘ By: Achuthan Sreekumar Achuthan Sreekumar of Anand and Anand draws on a recent High Court of Delhi ruling

Life and death matter? The protection of well-known personal names in India
Thought Leadership
Mar 27, 2025

‘First published on Lexology’ By: Safir Anand and Abhishek Paliwal India, one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, is on track to become a

Company Name vs. Trademark: Essential Insights for Establishing Your Business Brand in India
Thought Leadership
Mar 19, 2025

‘First published on Chambers and Partners’ By: Safir Anand and Twinky Rampal Law and Practice  1. Trade Mark and Copyright Law  1.1 Governing

Chambers Trademarks & Copyright 2025 | Law & Practice
Thought Leadership
Mar 19, 2025

‘First published on Chambers and Partners’ By: Safir Anand Introduction The landscape of intellectual property in India is undergoing a significant

Chambers Trademarks & Copyright 2025 | Trends and Developments