Presumption of Patent Validity : A Comparative Study in the Light of Indian and U.S. Situations

The granting of a Patent confers certain exclusive rights on the Patentee. However, it does not mean that such rights could never be revoked if it can be proved that the examination was not properly done due to which relevant prior art was ignored. Such a presumption of validity of a Patent is only an acknowledgment of the fact that the examining body is competent and has a very high level of expertise. However, this issue of presumption has come under a lot of debate between academicians and practitioners primarily because a presumption only leads to inconclusive inference and does not bring into consideration the fact that an examining body can be erroneous in its decisions. The United States Patent Office derives its power primarily from Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution which seeks to provide the inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries. Section 282 of the 35th US Title code specifies that a Patent shall be presumed valid and thus places a very heavy burden of proof on the person alleging that the patent is invalid and should be revoked. From the 1930’s till the present day the US courts have strictly relied on this burden of proof which is ‘a clear and convincing evidence’ to rebut the validity of a Patent. Even in the recent landmark judgment of the US Supreme Court in Microsoft v. 14i it has refused to budge from this standard of proof. When we compare the Indian scenario however we see a stark contrast in the application of this doctrine. The Patent act, 1970 clearly demarcates that mere registration of a Patent would not be a presumption of the fact that it is valid. In section 48 of the Patent Act, 1970 it has been clearly provided that a Patentee will have his rights subject to other provisions of the act. In Biswanath Prasad v. Hindustan Metals the Apex Court held that presumption of patent validity is strictly prohibited as per the language of the statute in section 13(4). I seek to discuss the major areas of debate in this doctrine by discussing the opinions of various authors as well as landmark case laws and precedents and make a comparative study of the US and Indian situations