The main objective of Drafting a new set of rules is to streamline the procedure for filing patent suits and establish a uniform structure of provisions and governing mandates concerning patent litigation in the city’s adversarial system, following the establishment of IPD.   

Key Highlights of the Draft Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2021

The Draft Rules clarify that the published rules will apply to all patent suits in India which lie before the Intellectual Property Division of the Delhi High Court. As per the issued notification, in case of any inconsistency occurs over the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 and the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, then in that case the present rules will prevail.

Further, the General Clause of the Rules (Rule 17) states that “Procedures and definitions not specifically provided for in these Rules shall, in general, be governed by The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as amended by The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 as also the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2021, to the extent they are not inconsistent with the present Rules.”

As per the Definition Clause Rule 2(b), it is maintained that all suits seeking relief under Section 48, Sections 105, 106 including counterclaims under Section 64, Section 108, 109, 114 in the Patent Act, 1970 are governed by the provisions of the Rule. Additionally, the provision of Priority Patent Application has also been provided for in the Rules. It is defined under Rule 2(j) as, “ A parent application, a Convention application or a Patent Cooperation Treaty application from which the suit patent claims priority.”

Rule 3 elaborates upon the mandated contents of the pleadings and Rule 4 provides the details of the documents to be attached with the respective pleadings discussed under Rule 3. It also highlights the specifications that are crucial to mention in the pleadings.

1. The Plaint (Rule 3 A) shall discuss a brief background of the technology and relevant technical details, ownership details, corresponding suits/applications emanating from the innovation and the respective requisite details of the suit. An infringement analysis through a claim’s vs product chart, list of experts and details of the royalties received qua the suit/ patent portfolio also has to be mentioned.

2. Written Statement (Rule 3 B) shall be inclusive of arguments comprehensively challenging the claim of infringement. Technical analysis with specifics of the product/process used by the defendant shall be included in the written statement while claiming non-infringement. Further, if the defendant is willing to obtain a license from the patentee, quantum for the same has to be elaborated upon. Details of the sales of the allegedly infringing product/process also have to be provided.

3. Counter Claim (Rule 3 C) shall be precise as to the grounds that are raised under Section 64 of the Patent Act. The ground claiming lack of novelty or inventive step shall have to be supported by ‘art documents. If a counter-claim is filed seeking relief on the ground of noninfringement, then the requirements for a Suit under Section 105 of the Act shall be followed.

4. Replication ( Rule 3 D) shall initially summarize Plaintiff’s case and Defendant’s case. Subsequently, it shall provide a para-wise reply to the written statement.

5. A suit seeking a declaration of non-infringement under section 105 of the Act, shall specify the scope of the claims, the product/process being implemented by the Defendant claimed to be non-infringing and the technical/legal basis on which declaration is being sought

6. A suit under section 106 of the Act for an injunction against groundless threats shall contain the nature of the threat, whether oral or documentary; details of any challenge made to the validity of the patent and an invalidity brief pursuant to the challenge and details pertaining to correspondence that may have taken place between the parties.

It is pertinent to note that, strict directions and guidelines for the governance of relief applications under the Patent Act, 1970 saves judicial time and resources and improve the quality of judgements delivered by the court.

Further, the Draft Rules segregate the suit adjudication into three case management hearings, apart from the first listing, namely First Case Management Hearing, Second Case Management Hearing, and Third Case Management Hearing. The Rules enumerates specific directions that may be given by the Court at each stage, and also provide guidelines on when certain specific documents may be filed, officers may be appointed, etc. 

A key concept of Hot-tubbing has been discussed under Rule 9 (iii) that provides that expert testimony can be directed by the Court if it deems fit, on its own motion or application by a party to be recorded by Hot Tubbing technique guided by Rule 6, Chapter XI, Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. Further, the rule also discusses the recording of evidence through video conferencing, by a Local Commissioner or at a venue outside the Court’s premises; all subjected to the discretion of the court.

The current Draft under Rule 12 has provided for “compulsory mediation”. It provides that at any stage of the proceedings if the court is of the opinion that the parties ought to explore mediation, it shall appoint a mediator/ a panel of mediators and technical experts to explore the pathway of amicable dispute resolution.

Under Rule 13 the court has been empowered to prepare a list of scientific advisors that shall assist the Court in the adjudication of patent suits. The list shall be subjected to periodical review. When the assistance of the expert is sought, they would have to submit a declaration of integrity and impartiality. 

Under Rule 16, In addition to the provisions in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for Summary judgment, Summary Adjudication of Patent suits can be undertaken in the following conditions;

(a) Where the remaining term of the patent is 5 years or less;

(b) A certificate of validity of the said patent has already been issued or upheld by the erstwhile Intellectual Property Appellate Board, any High Court or the Supreme Court;

(c) If the Defendant is a repeat infringer of the same or related Patent;

(d) If the validity of the Patent is admitted and only infringement is denied.

Conclusion

The Draft Rules present adaptability to the technological revolution that has enveloped the industry sectors across the world by simplifying litigation and increasing flexibility of the procedural aspect of the law. The contents of the pleadings are unambiguously discussed, leaving no room for confusion, as all the requisite information can be obtained by the parties at the first instance. Further, the clearly earmarked list of mandatory documents to be filed by the litigants saves judicial time wasted in adjournments owing to the lack of availability of documents.

Incorporation of methods of video conferences, hot-tubbing etc. for the purpose of collecting evidence while providing for the filing of technical primer, makes the case more comprehensible and streamlines judgment quality across the patent suit. The Draft has also successfully addressed the issue of a lengthy litigation process by providing for Summary adjudication of Patent suits.

Since the Rules are currently open to the opinion and suggestions of the stakeholders, it is yet to be seen how the final rules would shape up.