A decision of the Delhi High Court hints at presumption of validity of the patents, Archana Shanker discusses.
In 3m Innovative v. Venus Safety, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court hinted at a presumption of validity of the patents holding that the grant of the patent by the IPO and the USPTO heightens the burden for establishing a credible challenge. Variously, the judges summarised the principles governing patentability of an invention and iterated:
- Merely because the prior art and the subject patent use the same term for a feature does not necessarily mean that the feature is the same.
- The entire specification and teaching of the prior art must be considered while determining patentability.
- With IPO and USPTO not finding the patent obvious, the burden is on the defendant to prove otherwise.
This article was published on Patents Rewind.