Intellectual property laws and their relevance in the functioning of a country are recognised globally. Strong IP legislation and an equally strong IP enforcement regime help attract new investment and allow innovators to develop new technologies. This situation is particularly true in the area of patents. India’s patent enforcement regime was plagued with major impediments, with the burden of proof being one.
India’s courts shift the burden of proof onto the defendant in respect of a process patent as per the requirement of the World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), i.e. if either of these two conditions are met: (1) the process results in “new”product; or (2) there is substantial likelihood that an identical product is made by the process and the plaintiff has made reasonable efforts to determine the process but has failed. Until recently, the courts adhered to the traditional rule of burden of proof when it came to infringement of patent claims directed towards a product. Thus, in case of alleged infringement of a patented product, the “onus of proof” rests on the plaintiff.
Extent of proof
One of the areas that required the courts’ attention was the extent of proof needed to be submitted by the patentee as a basis for infringement contentions when enforcing patents reading upon – or covering within the scope of monopoly – industry standards. Industry standards are benchmarks that are required to be met by a product for its commercial sale.
You must be a
subscribersubscribersubscribersubscriber
to read this content, please
subscribesubscribesubscribesubscribe
today.
For group subscribers, please click here to access.
Interested in group subscription? Please contact us.
你需要登录去解锁本文内容。欢迎注册账号。如果想阅读月刊所有文章,欢迎成为我们的订阅会员成为我们的订阅会员。
709/ 710, Tolstoy House, 15-17 Tolstoy Marg New Delhi – 110 001 India
电话 Tel: 91 11 2371 6565
传真 Fax: 91 11 2371 6556
电子信箱 E-mail:
deepak@lexorbis.com
www.lexorbis.com