Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Doctrine of Equivalents in India: Beyond the “Essential Elements”


Affiliations
1 Patent Professional, Pashan-Sus Road, Pune - 411 021, India
 

To conform to the TRIPS Agreement, The Indian Patents Act 1975 has been amended several times to comply with the global requirements. However, there is no clear directive in the statutes of the law as well as in the subsequent Court opinions regarding the analysis of the infringement by equivalence factor. In Raj Parkash v Mangat Ram Chowdhry, 1977 the Court provided the analysis of “Pith and Marrow” in line of the British analysis. Thereafter in the new regime of the patent law provides in Sotefin SA v Indraprastha Cancer Society, 2022 case the analysis of essential elements again. Now the Court has come across the question of equivalence in case of the chemical invention, i.e., in the alleged infringement by Natco, India for the preparation of the agrochemical Chlorantraniliprole or CTPR and thereby infringing the Indian Patent 298645 owned by FMC Corporation, Singapore. The Court applies the doctrine of equivalents to ascertain if there is an act of infringement to FMC’s patent by analyzing the case beyond the essential elements of a claim and set forth a new method of determination where the previous cases had fallen short of.

Keywords

Doctrine of Equivalents, Infringement by Equivalence, Indian Patenst Act, Chlorantraniliprole, CTPR, Rynaxypyr, CORAGEN, Pith and Marrow, Function-Way-Result, Essential Elements, Evergreening of Patent, Chemical Invention, FMC Corporation, Natco, Chemical
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997).
  • Delhi High Court opinion on Raj Parkash v Mangat Ram Chowdhry And Ors., 25 March 1977.
  • Bombay High Court opinion on Ravi Kamal Bali v Kala Tech And Ors., 12 February 2008.
  • Delhi High Court opinion on FMC Corporation & Ors. v Natco Pharma Limited, 19 September 2022.
  • Delhi High Court opinion on Sotefin Sa v Indraprastha Cancer Society and Research Center and Ors., 17 February 2022.

Abstract Views: 85

PDF Views: 42




  • Doctrine of Equivalents in India: Beyond the “Essential Elements”

Abstract Views: 85  |  PDF Views: 42

Authors

Chandan Bhar
Patent Professional, Pashan-Sus Road, Pune - 411 021, India

Abstract


To conform to the TRIPS Agreement, The Indian Patents Act 1975 has been amended several times to comply with the global requirements. However, there is no clear directive in the statutes of the law as well as in the subsequent Court opinions regarding the analysis of the infringement by equivalence factor. In Raj Parkash v Mangat Ram Chowdhry, 1977 the Court provided the analysis of “Pith and Marrow” in line of the British analysis. Thereafter in the new regime of the patent law provides in Sotefin SA v Indraprastha Cancer Society, 2022 case the analysis of essential elements again. Now the Court has come across the question of equivalence in case of the chemical invention, i.e., in the alleged infringement by Natco, India for the preparation of the agrochemical Chlorantraniliprole or CTPR and thereby infringing the Indian Patent 298645 owned by FMC Corporation, Singapore. The Court applies the doctrine of equivalents to ascertain if there is an act of infringement to FMC’s patent by analyzing the case beyond the essential elements of a claim and set forth a new method of determination where the previous cases had fallen short of.

Keywords


Doctrine of Equivalents, Infringement by Equivalence, Indian Patenst Act, Chlorantraniliprole, CTPR, Rynaxypyr, CORAGEN, Pith and Marrow, Function-Way-Result, Essential Elements, Evergreening of Patent, Chemical Invention, FMC Corporation, Natco, Chemical

References