IP Case Law › Patents › Versuni Holding B.V. v. Maya Appliances Private Limited & An…
Relevant Acts and provisions
Patents Act, 1970
Provisions considered: Sections 64 and 107, Patents Act, 1970
Brief facts
In Versuni's infringement suit (C.S. No. 733 of 2023), Maya Appliances filed a written statement with a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. Maya also pursued a separate revocation petition before the High Court. Versuni applied to reject the separate revocation proceedings.
Issues before the Court
Whether a defendant who has counterclaimed for revocation in an infringement suit can also pursue a separate revocation petition.
Court's findings
Having filed a written statement in the suit with a specific counterclaim for revocation, Maya could not plead that the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain the separate petition was not ousted in view of Section 107 of the Patents Act.
Decision
Versuni's application allowed and the separate revocation proceedings rejected.
Key legal principle / ratio
Where a defendant has already sought revocation by counterclaim in an infringement suit, it cannot simultaneously pursue a separate revocation petition on the same patent; the remedies under Section 64 are alternative.
Important paragraph references
Read with Dr. Aloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra (Supreme Court, 2014), also on IP Lex.
Important: This case note is a research summary only. It must be verified against the full judgment by a qualified lawyer, advocate or patent/trade mark attorney before any reliance. Do not rely on it as legal advice; Ragulika IP accepts no responsibility for its accuracy or for any action taken on it.
Keywords
Counterclaim Election of Remedy Parallel Proceedings Revocation Petition Section 64
Read the judgment
More Patents judgments
Patents
Agriboard International LLC v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
An order refusing a patent for lack of inventive step must contain a reasoned analysis of the prior art and of why the claimed invention would be obvious; an unreasoned order will be set aside and remanded.
Inventive StepPatent OfficePrior Art AnalysisReasoned OrderPatentsArray Biopharma Inc v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
A combination of distinct and independent active drugs, each with its own chemical identity and mechanism, does not fall under the Section 3(d) bar for derivatives of known substances. Using phrases such as 'for simultaneous, sepa…
Inventive StepMethod of TreatmentPharmaceutical CombinationPrior ArtPatentsAstraZeneca AB & Anr. v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited
A patentee that has treated a later patent as coextensive in term with an earlier patent covering the same compound abroad cannot, at the interim stage, claim a longer period of protection for the later patent in India; interim re…
DapagliflozinEvergreeningGenus PatentInterim Injunction