Revocation: The Grounds

In one line

Section 64 lists seventeen grounds on which the High Court may take a patent away, and they are wider than the grounds of opposition.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: by section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, subject to the provisions of the Act, a patent, whether granted before or after the commencement of the Act, may be revoked on a petition of any person interested or of the Central Government, or on a counter-claim in a suit for infringement, by the High Court, on any of the grounds set out in clauses (a) to (q).

The seventeen grounds

(a) Prior claiming. That the invention, so far as claimed, was claimed in a valid claim of earlier priority date contained in the complete specification of another patent granted in India.

(b) The applicant was not entitled. That the patent was granted on the application of a person not entitled under the Act to apply. Chapter 250 works section 6.

(c) Wrongful obtaining. That the patent was obtained wrongfully in contravention of the rights of the petitioner or of a person under or through whom he claims. Chapters 580 and 710 work sections 26 and 52.

(d) Not an invention. That the subject of any claim is not an invention within the meaning of the Act. This is sections 2(1)(j) and 3, worked in chapters 70 to 110.

(e) Not new. That the invention so far as claimed is not new, having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in India before the priority date, or to what was published in India or elsewhere in any of the documents referred to in section 13. Chapter 400 works novelty.

(f) Obvious. That the invention so far as claimed is obvious or does not involve any inventive step, having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in India, or what was published in India or elsewhere, before the priority date. Chapter 420 works it.

(g) Not useful. That the invention so far as claimed is not useful. Chapter 430 works the point that usefulness survives here and not in the definition.

(h) Insufficiency. That the complete specification does not sufficiently and fairly describe the invention and the method by which it is to be performed, that is to say that the description or the instructions are not by themselves sufficient to enable a person in India possessing average skill in, and average knowledge of, the art to work the invention; or that it does not disclose the best method of performing it known to the applicant and for which he was entitled to claim protection. Chapter 520 works it.