tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5949922529631180407.post4338033881685431297..comments2024-03-26T01:16:29.449+05:30Comments on The Demanding Mistress: Section 68 of the Patents Act: Registration of “Interest Creation” and the meaning of “Use”J.Sai Deepakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08357301068067861565noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5949922529631180407.post-54589204302206497812013-10-09T07:34:45.420+05:302013-10-09T07:34:45.420+05:30Dear TS,
Thanks for the comment. You have indeed u...Dear TS,<br />Thanks for the comment. You have indeed understood the issue correctly. In fact, your example of the Monsanto case really helps. In my example too, Y is merely handling the patented product to design a package for it. There is no use of the patented product itself per se. Therefore, I don't think his arrangement needs to be registered.<br /><br />Bests,<br />Sai. J.Sai Deepakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08357301068067861565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5949922529631180407.post-73500675095435882092013-10-05T14:27:42.385+05:302013-10-05T14:27:42.385+05:30Dear Sai,
The question you raised is indeed intere...Dear Sai,<br />The question you raised is indeed interesting.<br />However, question that remains is that whether this question could ever arise for practical purpose given that it brings an apparent contradiction between Section 48 and Section 69 wherein both "consent" and "license" tend to have same meaning!<br />If the question is on requirement of registration of the agreement-for obvious reasons under the facts, Y need not have to have a registered agreement to keep himself immune from the act infringements. <br />I remember the famous Monsanto Case from Canada much in the line of your hypothetical case. Here Supreme Court of Canada deliberated much on the term "USE" wherein the court accepted the arguments of the defendant farmer who said that since he had not exploited the advantage of the invention, he had not used it. Court also said that there is no "use" if the patentee has not been deprived of the full enjoyment of the monopoly conferred by the patent.<br /><br />I hope to have your issue correctly<br /><br />Cheers.<br /><br />TS<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com