This document discusses anticipation and revocation of patents under Indian patent law. It provides relevant sections and rules related to anticipation, which refers to when an invention is not considered novel or inventive due to being previously known. It also outlines case studies related to anticipation by prior publication or prior claiming. Additionally, it covers relevant law and cases related to revocation of patents, including situations where revocation is in the public interest or for non-working of the patent. Key learning points include what constitutes prior art, the requirements for anticipation, and who qualifies as an interested person able to request revocation.

1. Anticipation and
Revocation of Patents
Gurpal Singh
IN/PA - 2732

2. Relevant Sections (Anticipation)
S. No. Section Description
1 13 Search for anticipation by previous publication
and prior claim.
2 18 Powers of Controller in cases of anticipation.
3 29 Anticipation by previous publication.
4 30 Anticipation by previous communication to
Government.
5 31 Anticipation by public display.
6 32 Anticipation by public working
7 33 Anticipation by use and publication after
provisional specification.
8 34 Anticipation by use and publication after
provisional specification.

3. Relevant Rules (Anticipation)
S. No. Rule Description
1 28 Procedure in case of anticipation by prior
publication.
2 29 Procedure in case of anticipation by prior
claiming.
3 30 Amendment of complete specification in case of
anticipation.

4. Drawings as prior art
• Measuring dimensions in a diagrammatic representation do
not constitute a prior art [T 0204/83]
• “A prior art drawing may be taken into consideration as a prior
art disclosure if it discloses the essential features of the
impugned claim in a sufficiently and clearly understandable
manner to a skilled person and also if the drawing is such that
it provides an enabling disclosure either explicitly or
implicitly.”- Graf & CIE AG and Maschinenfabrik Rieter Ag v.
Nitto Shoji Limited (App. No. 422/Cal/2000)

5. Drawings as prior art
Publication No.:
EP0030192B1
Patent No.:
US3110626A
• European Case Law: T 0204/83

6. SynthonBV (Appellants)v. SmithklineBeecham
plc (Respondents)
• TIMELINE
Synthon
PCT Filing
(10th Jun.
1997)
SB Priority
filing (6th
Oct. 1998)
Synthon
App.
Published
(17th Dec.
1998)
SB UK Filing
(23rd Apr.
1999)
SB UK
Patent
2336364
Pub. (10th
May 200)
Synthon
commences
revocation
proceedings
(7th Mar.
2001)
• INVENTION
Synthon BV Smithkline Beecham Plc
Broad class of sulfonic acid salts
including PMS. (PMS synthesis in
crystalline form was described as
Example 1 in specification)
PMS in crystalline form with particular
IR and XRD characteristics.

7. SynthonBV (Appellants)v. SmithklineBeecham
plc (Respondents)
S.
No.
Relevant Questions Judge’s Take Learning
1. Was the invention already
disclosed ?
Yes, since the methods for
producing PMS were
substantially similar and
yielded identical crystals of
PMS in both the cases.
Anticipation requires prior
disclosure of subject-matter
which, when
performed, must necessarily
infringe the patented
invention.
2. Was the prior disclosure
enabling ?
The solvent used in Synthon
method (Ethanol) inhibited
crystal formation, but POTA
with reasonable trial and
error would have used
another solvent and
produced crystals. So yes.
For anticipation prior art
should be enabling. For
enablement, the person
skilled in the art is
assumed to be willing to
make trial and error
experiments to get it to work

8. Relevant Sections and Rules
(Revocation)
S. No. Section Description
1 64 Revocation of patents.
2 65 Revocation of patent or amendment of complete
specification on directions from Government in
cases relating to atomic energy.
3 66 Revocation of patent in public interest.
4 85 Revocation of patents by the Controller for non-
working.
S. No. Rule Description
1 96 Application for compulsory licence etc.
2 99 Manner of publication of revocation order.

9. AJAY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION Vs.
SHIRO KANAO OF IBARAKI CITY
• INVENTIONS (Shiro Kanao (Respondent))
S. No. Patent Description
1 124526 Method or apparatus for continuously
producing a spiralled tube of plastic resin.
Granted 19/12/1969
2 114519 Flexible plastic hose. Granted 6/12/1967
• PROCEEDINGS
• Ajay Industrial Corporation (Appellant) is a registered firm
manufacturing and selling reinforced plastic hose pipes.
• Shiro Kanao files infringement suit against Ajay Industrial Corp w.r.t
11419 in Ahmedabad Court.
• Ajay Industrial Corp files for revocation of patents 124526 and
114519 in Delhi High court claiming that inventions claimed in both
the patents have already been known and cannot be called
inventions.

10. AJAY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION Vs.
SHIRO KANAO OF IBARAKI CITY
S. No. Relevant Questions Judge’s Take
1 Does the case fall in jurisdiction
of Delhi High Court ?
Even though Section 104 provides
provision of Counter-claim in
infringement suit, this case can also
regarded as an independent appeal for
revocation u/s 64 (even when an
infringement suit is pending) and can be
filed in any jurisdiction where the
appellant has or might have a
commercial interest.
2 Does the appellant qualify as
“person interested” for process
patent ?
Person interested is a person who has
direct, present and tangible commercial
interest or public interest which is
injured or affected by continuance of
patent register.

11. Revocation of Agracerus’s
Patent (Section 66)
• INVENTION
S. No. Patent Description
1 168950 A method of producing transformed
Cotton Cells by tissue culture.
• No pre-grant opposition was filed by any party hence the patent was
granted.
• Opposition came from cotton farmers stating that the patent would
impact the farming of cotton crop.
• Indian Government revoked the patent in October 1994 stating that
it would adversely affect India’s cotton economy.
• The suit was followed by United States which too revoked
Agracerus’s Patent.

12. Thank You