Filter

Open

Fraud in Obtaining Patent and Revocation

31

JUL

2022

Patent rights are statutory right created under the terms and conditions of the national patent law. Nonetheless, if any patent protection is fraudulently obtained, patentees is free to use it to stop competitors and charge high prices to consumers. The patent offices are neither permitted nor equipped to detect any fraud during the prosecution of the patent application. However, patent office obviously expects patent applicants to act in good faith, failing which a patent may be held to be invalid if it is proved in invalidation suite that patent was obtained by fraud, false suggestion, or misrepresentation. Therefore, all the applicants for grant of a patent have a duty of candour, good faith, and honesty in dealings with the patent office.

Remedy against fraud

But what are the possible remedies available to the competitors if they suspect that the fraud has occurred? One possibility is seeking invalidation of a patent before the courts as it was done by Becton -Dickinson in in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton-Dickinson, Inc. [649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011)]. In this case Becton was able to convince the court with clear and conclusive evidence that Therasense had manipulated the experiment results to obtain the US 5,820,551 patent for disposable glucose test strips for diabetes. In this case Abbott Laboratories (Abbott), the successor to Therasense, Inc. (defendant), obtained patents for disposable glucose test strips for diabetes. Becton-Dickinson, Inc. brought suit, seeking a declaratory judgment that Abbott’s patents were invalid. In its patent application, in USPTO, Abbott had asserted that its invention required a protective membrane, and that such a membrane was not merely optional or preferred. This stand was in contrast to a previous assertion by Abbott’s European patent counsel to the European Patent Office (EPO) where counsel had stated that the protective membrane of the invention was optional, but preferable. In fact, Abbott withheld this statement made before the EPO from USPTO. Founding this assertion correct the United States District Court ruled the glucose test strip patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct on the part of Abbott. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed, but then granted rehearing en banc.

Similarly, Australian Federal Court revoked a patent directed to a specific form of Warner-Lambert's blockbuster cholesterol lowering drug, Lipitor (Ranbaxy Australia Pty Ltd v Warner-Lambert Co LLC (2008) 77 IPR 449) based on the false representation that the R form of the drug was ten times greater in activity. This fact was found material to the patent office's considerations in granting the patent. Court held that this information was no only false but also misleading. In this case Ranbaxy Australia was able to prove that all of the data available to Warner-Lambert showed that the R form of the drug had an activity level that was only about two times greater than the racemate.

In yet another classic case of fraud on patent office, Delaware District Court in Cancer Research Technology et al. v Barr Laboratories et al. (2010) while revoking the patent relating tetrazine compound temozolomide, highlights the extent of the duty of good faith that is owed to the Patent Office (USPTO) by patent applicants. In this case Cancer Research Technology (CRT) filed series of patent application covering tetrazine compounds of temozolomides marketed under Trade Name Temodar®. However, series of these applications were rejected by USPTO on the grounds that the application did not include data showing the efficacy of the claimed compounds in humans. But in the impugned patent, the applicant convinced the examiner that there is no need to provide data showing efficacy in humans as the animal test data is already present in the application was sufficient. This patent was allowed by the examiner. However, in the invalidation action the opponent was able to produce the documents where one of the inventors’ published papers on tetrazine derivatives, including papers showing that some of the compounds covered by the claims were inactive. Court found that this information was not shared with Patent office when broad claims including the inactive compounds were granted. The court held that the data showing inactivity was material to patentability and should have been disclosed to the USPTO and declared patent as unenforceable due to invalid broad claims.

Position in India

The revocation proceedings under section 25(2) or section 64 based on grounds of fraud, false suggestion or misrepresentation are invariably raised but rarely pursued during trial in Indian courts. Theoretically speaking, any fraud in the creation of any patent right should be dealt severely by the patent office or the courts when the same is brought to the notice by the competitors. Such patent may face invalidation action of the interested competitor. According to section 64(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970, a patent may be revoked patent when a patentee secure patent protection based on false suggestion or representation. Patent is liable to be revoked under section 64(1)(o) if leave to amend complete specification under section 57 or section 58 was obtained by fraud. Additionally, Section 64(1)(m) of the Act states “that the applicant for the patent has failed to disclose to the Controller the information required by section 8 or has furnished information which in any material particular was false to his knowledge” is a ground for revocation of patent. In other words, section 64(1)(j), section 64(1)(o) and Section 8 read with Section 64(1)(m), seeks to ensure, and foster an honest and forthright disclosures of any information relating to patent by the patentee. Since the term ‘fraud’ is not clearly defined in the patent law, the patent office and courts rely on the common law meaning given to any fraudulent act. Normally, such act is covered under inequitable conduct or violation of duty of disclosure.

Cautionary remarks

These cases and many other cases relating non-disclosure of information material to grant of patent in many other countries is treated as fraud on patent office and such granted patents are liable to revocation if the opponent produce clear and convincing evidence before the court. These cases highlight the need of the inventors/ applicants to share all the relevant data to their patent facilitators for the purpose of drafting the patent specification and during its prosecution before patent offices of all jurisdictions including India. In practice, at times such information is not shared to avoid rejection of patent or curtailment of the scope of the claims. But court invariable favor the opponent if it turns out later that patent grant was obtained by fraud. Courts are unlikely to take lenient view as they believe that inventors are in the best position to know all the information/documents surrounding their inventions. Therefore, withholding any information which is material to ascertain the grant of patent may lead revocation of a patent by the opponent. Unlike in other countries such as US, Australia and Israel, there is no direct provision under the Indian patent law that empower the controller to revoke any fraudulent patent grant. This means if patent is obtained by fraud, it is more likely to stand and enforceable unless it is challenged in the revocation proceedings. In India opponent at times raise the ground of ‘unclean hands’, in patent invalidation disputes as a principle of equity. But this defense is likely to be successful only if the defendant proves though clear and convincing evidence that the patent applicant has breached a ‘duty of candor and good faith’ by misrepresenting or suppressing information submitted to the Patent Office. Nonetheless, it is known that patent fraud is extremely difficult to discover and prove. However, the competitors, who have deep and broad knowledge of both the relevant market and the relevant technology, are best position to uncover patent fraud and prove it. But at times, even these extremely strong competitors are rarely able to uncover inequitable conduct in the prosecution of a patent, let alone prove it. An expert opinion would be helpful if the opponent suspect that an alleged patent is obtained by fraud upon the patent office.

About the Firm

LexOrbis
Address 709-710 Tolstoy House, 15-17 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – 110001
Tel 91-11-2371 6565
Fax 91-11-2371 6556
Email manisha@lexorbis.com
Link www.lexorbis.com

Related Articles

22
OCT
2022
No Exclusivity over INNs – Delhi High Court Denies Injunctive Relief to Sun Pharma
22
OCT
2022
International Non-proprietary Names (INNs) are considered as generic names for pharmaceutical substa...

Read More

03
SEP
2022
Polymorphs Patentability : Looking Though Judicial Lens
03
SEP
2022
Story of exitance of polymorphism dates back to the year 1812 when Napoleon Bonaparte army wore h...

Read More

08
AUG
2022
Amendment of Product by Process Claim to a Process Complies Section 59(1)
08
AUG
2022
A recent judgement in matter of Nippon A&L Inc. V. The Controller of Patents dated 5th July 2022 ...

Read More

02
JUN
2022
Can a Reputable Mark Define Infringement?
02
JUN
2022
Recently, the Bombay High Court granted interim relief in a trademark dispute between RPG Enterprise...

Read More

22
APR
2022
The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2021
22
APR
2022
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 was enacted for the conservation of biological diversity, sust...

Read More

25
MAR
2022
Rules on Intellectual Property Matters Notified by High Court of Delhi
25
MAR
2022
In a much-awaited development, the Delhi High Court has notified the “High Court of Delhi Rule...

Read More

07
MAR
2022
Competitor’s Dishonest Intention in Using Similar Word Can Be Injuncted
07
MAR
2022
Recently, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction against the defendant until disposal of...

Read More

17
JAN
2022
Supreme Court of India Further Extended the Suspension of Limitation Period/Timelines under General and Special Laws
17
JAN
2022
In view of the spike in new cases of Covid-19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has on...

Read More

08
DEC
2021
Non-speaking Refusal Order Quashed by the Bombay High Court
08
DEC
2021
The Bombay High Court, through an order dated 6th October 2021 in the case of Metso Outotec Corpo...

Read More

29
NOV
2021
Note on the Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill, 2021
29
NOV
2021
The Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill, 2021, will be introduc...

Read More

29
NOV
2021
Note on Joint Parliamentary Committee’s Report on the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019
29
NOV
2021
The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 was introduced in the Lower House of the Indian Parliamen...

Read More

11
OCT
2021
Delhi High Court Proposes to Frame Intellectual Property Division (IPD) Rules, 2021
11
OCT
2021
In July, 2021, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court announced creation of Intellectua...

Read More

04
OCT
2021
Suspension of Limitation Period Due to COVID-19 Withdrawn
04
OCT
2021
On September 23, 2021, the Supreme Court withdrew the suspension of limitation that was in place sin...

Read More

03
AUG
2021
Surrender of a Patent Cause and Effect
03
AUG
2021
Voluntary surrender of a patent and its revocation in a court are two distinct actions through which...

Read More

13
JUL
2021
No Grant of Anti-Suit Injunction if Foreign Proceedings Not Oppressive or Vexatious: Delhi HC
13
JUL
2021
When proceedings are pending in a foreign court against an Indian citizen, such a person can requ...

Read More

16
JUN
2021
Pre-grant Order Appealable: IPAB Precedents Lost?
16
JUN
2021
Judiciously speaking precedential value of every decision of a higher court is high for deciding ...

Read More

26
MAY
2021
Court Recognizes The Seriousness of Medicinal Trademarks
26
MAY
2021
Recently, the Delhi High Court decided the case of Mankind Pharma Limited vs Novakind Bio Sciences P...

Read More

08
APR
2021
Can a Prefix Conceal Infringement?
08
APR
2021
The factor of distinctiveness of a trademark plays a vital role in deciding infringement suits. W...

Read More

07
APR
2021
Intellectual Property Appellate Board Abolished by Way of An Ordinance
07
APR
2021
The Central Government by way of an Ordinance, namely the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and Con...

Read More

14
MAR
2021
Claiming Royalty Fee After Delay Cannot Be Sustained
14
MAR
2021
The High Court of Delhi in the case of Ozone Spa Pvt Ltd vs Jyotsna Sanjay Aggarwal & Anr. delibe...

Read More

12
MAR
2021
Extension of Limitation under COVID-19 Comes to an End_Supreme Court Order Dated March 8, 2021
12
MAR
2021
In view of the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the Supreme Court of India by an order d...

Read More

07
FEB
2021
‘Knowledge Workers’ and Trade Secret!
07
FEB
2021
Knowledge drives the companies to gain competitive edge over the similarly placed companies in the m...

Read More

21
DEC
2020
Trademark Used Only for Exports Can be Protected
21
DEC
2020
Recently, the Delhi High Court heard a plea for granting an interim injunction in favour of UFO Cont...

Read More

21
DEC
2020
SMEs and Standard Essential Patents (SEPs)
21
DEC
2020
Basics of SEPs A technical standard is a formal document that establishes uniform engineering or te...

Read More

21
OCT
2020
Significant Achievements Witnessed by The IP Office (2014-15 to 2019-20)
21
OCT
2020
National IPR Policy unveiled in the year 2016 has brought out such remarkable changes in the IP. Ad...

Read More

  • 1
  • 2