Chapter 23 : The Patent Act,1970

CHAPTER XXIII – MISCELLANEOUS

Section 140: Avoidance of certain restrictive conditions

This section is vital for preventing the abuse of patent rights by patentees who might use their monopoly to impose unfair commercial conditions on licensees or purchasers.

140(1) Unlawful Contract Conditions

It is unlawful to insert a condition into any contract (for sale, lease, or license of a patented article or process) if the effect of that condition is to impose any of the following restrictions. Any such condition shall be void.

• 140(1)(a) Mandatory Tie-in Sales or Restrictions on Sourcing: A condition that requires or prohibits the purchaser/licensee from acquiring any article other than the patented one from a source other than the vendor/licensor (or their nominees).
  • Real-World Example: A company licenses a patented machine. The contract states the licensee must buy all unpatented raw materials (like specific chemicals or paper rolls) only from the patentee. This “tie-in” condition is void under this clause, as it abuses the patent monopoly to control the market for unpatented goods.
• 140(1)(b) Restriction on Use of Unpatented Article: A condition that restricts the purchaser/licensee’s right to use an unpatented article that is not supplied by the patentee.
  • Real-World Example: A patentee sells a patented 3D printer and includes a clause stating the purchaser is forbidden from using competitor X’s brand of unpatented plastic filament. This condition is void.
• 140(1)(c) Restriction on Use of Unpatented Process: A condition that restricts the purchaser/licensee’s right to use any unpatented process other than the patented process.
  • Real-World Example: A company licenses a patented chemical process but the contract forbids them from simultaneously using any other unpatented mixing process in their plant. This restriction on unpatented activity is void.
• 140(1)(d) Anti-Competitive Terms (Added in 2002): Conditions that explicitly aim to:
  • Exclusive Grant Back: Require the licensee to transfer future improvements they develop back exclusively to the patentee.
  • Prevention to Challenges: Prohibit the licensee from challenging the validity of the patent.
  • Coercive Package Licensing: Require the licensee to take a license for multiple patents (some of which they may not need) just to get the one they want.
  • Real-World Example: A contract states that the licensee agrees never to challenge the patent’s validity in court. That clause is automatically void because it prevents legitimate legal scrutiny of the patent monopoly.

140(2) Separate Contracts Don’t Hide Invalidity

The unlawful nature of the conditions mentioned in 140(1)(a), (b), or (c) does not change simply because the restrictive agreement was written as a separate contract from the main patent license.

• Real-World Example: A licensor tries to avoid Section 140(1)(a) by having two documents: one is the patent license, and the second, separate document is a supply contract forcing the purchase of unpatented materials. This section clarifies that the supply contract is still void because its effect is to impose a tie-in condition.

140(3) Defence Against Infringement

If a person is sued for patent infringement, it is a valid defense to prove that, at the time of the alleged infringement, there was a contract in force containing an unlawful (void) condition as defined by this section.

• Proviso (Innocent Plaintiff): This defense does not apply if the plaintiff (the patentee) was not a party to the unlawful contract and can prove that the restrictive condition was inserted without their express or implied knowledge and consent.
  • Real-World Example: An inventor (Patentee) licenses their patent through a separate marketing firm (Licensor). The marketing firm illegally inserts a “tie-in” condition. If a manufacturer is sued for infringement, they can use the void condition as a defense. However, if the inventor can prove they knew nothing of the illegal tie-in, the defense fails against the inventor, and the infringement suit can proceed.

140(4) Exceptions (What is Not Unlawful)

This section clarifies certain common contractual terms that are not considered unlawful under this section:

• 140(4)(a) Exclusive Dealing: A condition that prohibits a person from selling goods other than those of a particular person.
  • Real-World Example: A patentee licenses their coffee bean grinding machine. The contract can legally require the licensee to only sell coffee beans supplied by the patentee (this is a common exclusive dealing arrangement).
• 140(4)(b) Validity of Unlawful Contracts: This section does not validate a contract that would be invalid for other reasons (e.g., under the Indian Contract Act or Competition Act) even if the restrictive condition is removed.
• 140(4)(c) Maintenance and Repair: A condition in a lease or license for a patented article that reserves to the patentee (lessor/licensor) the right to supply new parts or keep the article in repair.
  • Real-World Example: A company leases a patented industrial robot. The contract can legally require the lessee to use only the patentee’s technicians for maintenance and only the patentee’s own spare parts, as this is necessary to ensure the patented item remains functional and safe.

Section 141: Determination of certain contracts

This section grants the purchaser or licensee the power to unilaterally terminate a contract relating to a patented invention once the patent protection itself has expired. This prevents patent holders from using perpetual contracts to extend their monopoly.

141(1) Right to Terminate

Any contract for the sale or lease of a patented article, or a license to manufacture, use, or work a patented article or process, may be terminated by the purchaser, lessee, or licensee at any time.

• Trigger Condition: Termination is allowed once the patent or all relevant patents that protected the article or process at the time the contract was made have ceased to be in force (i.e., expired or revoked).
• Termination Method: The party terminating the contract must give three months’ notice in writing to the other party.
• Overriding Rule: This right applies notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the contract or in any other related contract.
  • Real-World Example: A company signs a 20-year contract in 2010 to license a patented technology, but the patent expires in 2025. Even if the contract has a clause saying, “This agreement is non-terminable for 25 years,” the licensee can legally terminate the contract in 2025 by giving three months’ written notice, as the underlying patent protection has ended.

141(2) Preservation of Other Rights

The provisions of this section do not limit any other right to terminate a contract that a party might have under general contract law.

• Real-World Example: If a licensee has a right to terminate the contract after five years due to the licensor’s breach (under the Indian Contract Act), that right remains valid. Section 141 only adds an additional termination right based on patent expiry.

Section 142: Fees

This section establishes the authority for setting and collecting fees and specifies the crucial rule regarding when documents are officially considered “filed.”

142(1) Prescribed Fees

Such fees as may be prescribed by the Central Government must be paid in respect of the grant of patents, applications for patents, and other matters related to the patent process under this Act.

• Real-World Example: The government, via the official Rules, sets the specific charges for filing an application (Form 1), requesting examination (Form 18), and paying annual renewal fees.

142(2) No Act Without Fee Payment

Where a fee is payable in respect of an act to be done by the Controller, the Controller shall not perform that act until the fee has been paid.

• Real-World Example: If an applicant requests a hearing (an act by the Controller) but fails to pay the required fee for that request, the Controller is legally barred from scheduling or conducting the hearing.

142(3) Filing Date Conditioned on Fee Payment

Where a fee is payable for filing a document at the Patent Office, the fee must be paid along with the document or within the prescribed time. If the fee is not paid within that time, the document shall be deemed not to have been filed at all.

• Real-World Example: A company submits a response to the examination report on Monday, but the official fee is due that day. If they fail to pay the fee by the prescribed deadline (often later that day or week), the entire response is legally treated as if it was never filed, which could lead to the abandonment of their application.

142(4) Late Fee Payment (Grant Date Later than Two Years)

If a patent is granted later than two years from the application’s filing date (which is common), any renewal fees that became due during that interim period may be paid within three months from the date the patent is recorded in the register, or within an extended period not later than nine months from the recording date.

• Real-World Example: An application filed in 2020 is finally granted and recorded in the Register in January 2025. Renewal fees for the 3rd, 4th, and 5th years became due while the application was pending. The patentee is given a window of at least three months (up to nine months with extension) from January 2025 to pay all those accrued fees to keep the patent in force.

Section 143: Restrictions upon publication of specification

This section details the restrictions on the Controller’s ability to publish an application or specification, prioritizing confidentiality until the legal publication stage.

• General Rule: Subject to the rules regarding national security and secrecy (Chapter VII), an application for a patent and its specification shall not be published by the Controller without the applicant’s consent before the earliest of the following dates:
  1. The expiration of the prescribed period (usually 18 months from the earliest priority date) under Section 11A(1).
  2. The date the application is opened for public inspection under Section 11A(3) (which is the date of publication).
  3. The date of grant of the patent under Section 43.
• Real-World Example: A startup files a new technology patent. The Controller must keep the details confidential for at least 18 months or until the applicant requests early publication. The Controller cannot accidentally or intentionally release the technical specifications to the public any earlier, as that would destroy the novelty of the invention.

Section 144: Reports of Examiners to be confidential

This section ensures the confidentiality and non-admissibility of the examination reports generated by Patent Office examiners.

• Confidentiality: The reports prepared by the examiners for the Controller shall not be open to public inspection or published by the Controller.
• Legal Proceedings: These reports are not subject to production or inspection in any legal proceeding (such as a court case) unless the court formally certifies that the production or inspection is desirable in the interests of justice and should be allowed.
• Real-World Example: A patentee is involved in an infringement suit. The opposing party cannot simply demand a copy of the examiner’s original report arguing against the patent’s validity. They must convince the court that viewing the confidential internal report is absolutely necessary to ensure a just outcome of the case.

Section 145: Publication of official journal

This is an administrative section requiring the Patent Office to maintain a public record of key patent events.

• Requirement: The Controller shall publish periodically an official journal.
• Content: This journal must contain such information as is required to be published by or under the provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder.
• Real-World Example: The “Official Journal” is where the Patent Office publishes weekly notices regarding the filing of applications, acceptance of specifications, grant of patents, lapse of patents, and any other matters required for public awareness. This serves as the official public record.

Section 146: Power of Controller to call for information from patentees

This crucial section ensures transparency and allows the government to monitor whether patented inventions are being commercially worked in India, which is a key objective of the Act.

146(1) Demand for Specific Information

The Controller may, at any time while a patent is in force, send a written notice to a patentee or licensee (exclusive or otherwise) demanding specific information or periodical statements about the extent to which the patented invention has been commercially worked in India.

• Timeline: The recipient must furnish this information within two months from the date of the notice, or within any further time the Controller allows.
  • Real-World Example: The Controller sends a notice to “SolarTech Innovations” asking for quarterly reports detailing the number of patented solar panels manufactured and sold in India over the last three years. SolarTech must provide this data within 60 days.

146(2) Mandatory Working Statement

Regardless of any specific request under sub-section (1), every patentee and every licensee must regularly furnish statements regarding the extent to which the patented invention has been worked on a commercial scale in India.

• Format and Frequency: This must be done in the manner and form and at intervals prescribed (the rules state this must be at least every six months).
  • Real-World Example: Every year, the Patent Rules require all patentees to file Form 27 detailing their commercial activities related to the patent in India for the preceding year. This is the mandatory statement required by this sub-section.

146(3) Public Disclosure of Working

The Controller may publish the information received under sub-sections (1) or (2) in the manner prescribed.

• Real-World Example: The Patent Office often publishes summaries or data from the working statements in the Official Journal, allowing the public (including potential licensees or rivals) to see which patents are being utilized and which are not.

Section 147: Evidence of entries, documents, etc.

This section makes it easier for the Patent Office’s official records and documents to be legally recognized and accepted in court proceedings.

147(1) Controller’s Certificate as Proof

A certificate that is signed by the Controller, confirming any entry, matter, or act that they are authorized to perform, is considered prima facie evidence (evidence that is sufficient to establish a fact unless rebutted) of the entry or act having occurred.

• Real-World Example: The Controller issues a certificate stating that a patent renewal fee was paid on a specific date. This certificate is legally accepted as proof of payment in any court unless the opposing party can conclusively prove otherwise.

147(2) Certified Copies as Evidence

A copy of any entry in the Register, or of any document kept in the Patent Office, that is certified by the Controller and sealed with the seal of the Patent Office, must be admitted as evidence in all courts and legal proceedings without needing further proof of the original document.

• Real-World Example: A lawyer needs a copy of the original Complete Specification for an infringement trial. Instead of calling the Controller to court to bring the original file, the lawyer simply provides a copy certified and sealed by the Patent Office; the court must accept this as a true copy.

147(3) Controller Not Compellable

The Controller or any other Patent Office officer cannot be forced to produce the register or documents in court, nor can they be forced to appear as a witness to prove the contents of those documents in any legal proceeding to which they are not a party.

• Exception: This is only waived if a court specifically orders it for special causes.
  • Real-World Example: During a court case, a company tries to force the Controller to testify about whether they personally saw a certain document being filed. The Controller can decline, citing this section, because the certified copy of the filing is already admissible evidence, making the testimony unnecessary unless the court determines a critical, special reason for the Controller’s personal involvement.

Section 148: Declaration by infant, lunatic, etc.

This section provides a mechanism for legally incapacitated individuals to participate in patent processes through a representative.

148(1) Representation for Incapacitated Persons

If a person is legally incapable (due to minority, lunacy, or other disability) of making a statement or doing anything required by the Act, their lawful guardian, committee, or manager may make the necessary statement and perform the actions on the incapacitated person’s behalf.

• No Existing Guardian: If no such guardian exists, any person appointed by a court with jurisdiction over the person’s property may act for them.
  • Real-World Example: A 16-year-old brilliant inventor, being a minor (infant), cannot legally sign the patent application forms himself. His father, as his lawful guardian, is authorized by this section to sign all documents and make all statements on the inventor’s behalf until the inventor turns 18.

148(2) Court Appointment

A court may appoint a person to act under this section based on the request (petition) of anyone acting on behalf of the disabled person or any other interested party.

• Real-World Example: An assignee wants to acquire the rights to an invention held by an elderly person declared legally incompetent (a lunatic) who has no immediate family to act as guardian. The assignee can petition the court to appoint a manager for the purpose of transferring the patent rights.

Section 149: Service of notices, etc. by post

This simple yet fundamental section governs how official communications are delivered and received.

• Rule: Any notice required or authorized to be given by or under this Act, and any application or other document so authorized or required to be made or filed, may be given, made or filed by post.
  • Real-World Example: The Patent Office sends the official “First Examination Report” to the applicant’s Patent Agent via registered post. This method of service is explicitly validated by this section, ensuring the legal standing of the notification date. (In modern times, this is largely supplemented by electronic communication, but the postal rule remains the foundation).

Section 150: Security for costs

This section allows the Controller to demand a financial guarantee from foreign parties involved in contentious proceedings.

• Scenario: If any party who gives notice of opposition (under the Act) or applies to the Controller for a compulsory license neither resides nor carries on business in India.
• Controller’s Power: The Controller may require him to give security for the costs of the proceedings.
• Consequence of Failure: If the security is not provided, the Controller may treat the opposition or application as abandoned.

Real-World Example: A U.S. company with no Indian presence files an opposition against a patent application. The Controller, knowing the complexity and potential expense of the hearing, can demand the U.S. company deposit a certain sum (e.g., ₹1,00,000) as security to cover the Indian applicant’s costs if the U.S. company ultimately loses the case. If the U.S. company refuses to pay 

Section 151: Transmission of orders of courts to Controller

This section ensures that all legal decisions made by the High Court that affect the status or validity of a patent are formally communicated back to the Patent Office so the official records (the Register) can be updated immediately.

151(1) Court Revocation Orders and Certificates

Every order passed by the High Court concerning a petition for revocation of a patent (under Section 64), including orders granting certificates of validity for any claim (under Section 113), must be transmitted by the High Court to the Controller.

• Controller’s Duty: The Controller must then cause an entry and reference to that order to be made in the official Patent Register.
  • Real-World Example: In a major patent case, the Delhi High Court revokes a patent for a medical device. To make this revocation official and publicly searchable, the High Court sends the formal revocation order to the Controller. The Patent Office immediately updates the Register to show the patent is revoked, removing its legal effect.

151(2) Infringement and Validity Judgments

In any lawsuit for patent infringement or a groundless threats suit (Section 106), if the validity of any claim is contested and the court rules that the claim is valid or not valid, the court must transmit a copy of its judgment and decree to the Controller.

• Controller’s Duty: The Controller must then record an entry relating to the proceeding in a supplemental record.
  • Real-World Example: In an infringement suit, a defendant argues Patent X is invalid. The court rules that Patent X is indeed invalid. A copy of this decision is sent to the Controller to be noted in the official records, signaling a potential vulnerability or clarification regarding that patent.

151(3) Appellate Court Decisions

The rules set out in sub-sections (1) and (2) (regarding the transmission of orders and judgments) also apply to the court to which appeals are preferred against the decisions of the original courts.

• Real-World Example: If a company appeals a High Court decision on patent validity to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court’s final ruling, which sets the precedent, must also be sent to the Controller for official recording.

Section 152: [Omitted]

This section, which dealt with the transmission and inspection of copies of specifications and other documents, has been omitted (deleted) from the Act by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005.

• Real-World Example: (As this section is omitted, no current operational example applies. Its removal streamlined the public records process.)

Section 153: Information relating to Patents

This section establishes the right of the public to request and receive specific information about any patent or application.

• Right to Information: Any person who makes a request to the Controller in the prescribed manner for information relating to any prescribed matters about a specified patent or application shall be entitled to have that information supplied to them.
• Condition: This right is subject to the payment of the prescribed fee.
  • Real-World Example: A competitor wants to know the current owner and maintenance fee status of Patent Y. They file a prescribed request (usually an online form) and pay the small fee. The Patent Office is legally required to furnish them with the requested details, such as the patentee’s address and the last date the renewal fee was paid.

Section 154: Loss or destruction of Patents

This section deals with the procedure for replacing the physical patent document if it is lost, destroyed, or unavailable.

• Conditions for Action: If a physical patent document is lost or destroyed, or if its non-production is accounted for to the satisfaction of the Controller (e.g., it’s stuck in a flood), the Controller may take action.
• Procedure: The patentee must make an application in the prescribed manner and pay the prescribed fee.
• Controller’s Action: The Controller may then cause a duplicate of the patent document to be sealed and delivered to the applicant.
  • Real-World Example: An inventor’s office burns down, and their original physical patent grant is destroyed. They apply to the Controller under this section, provide proof of the fire, pay the fee, and receive an officially sealed duplicate patent document.

Section 155: Reports of Controller to be placed before Parliament

This ensures governmental accountability and public oversight of the patent system’s operation.

• Reporting Requirement: The Central Government shall cause a report respecting the execution of this Act by or under the Controller to be placed before both Houses of Parliament once a year.
  • Real-World Example: Every year, the Controller General compiles a comprehensive annual report detailing the number of applications filed, patents granted, fees collected, cases decided, and the general administration of the Patent Office. This report is then formally submitted to both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha for review and discussion.

Section 156: Patent to bind Government

This section establishes that the government, for the most part, has the same obligations to respect patent rights as any private citizen or company.

• Principle: Subject to other provisions in the Act (like the government’s right to use inventions under Section 47 or 100), a patent shall have to all intents the like effect as against Government as it has against any person.
  • Real-World Example: A private company holds a patent for a specialized road construction machine. If a State Government’s public works department wants to use this machine for general road construction, they cannot simply copy it. They must either pay the patentee for a license, or the Central Government must invoke its special “use for purposes of government” powers (Section 100) to override the patent, but even then, compensation must generally be paid.

Section 157: Right of Government to sell or use forfeited articles

This is a specific exception allowing the government to utilize goods seized or forfeited under separate laws, even if those goods incorporate a patented invention.

• Principle: Nothing in this Act shall affect the power of the Government or of any person deriving title from the Government to sell or use any articles forfeited under any law for the time being in force.
  • Real-World Example: A batch of counterfeit goods (like fake luxury watches that contain a patented locking mechanism) is seized and forfeited by Customs. This section allows the government to dispose of, sell, or even use the forfeited goods (for example, using the patented mechanism for internal testing or destruction) without being sued for patent infringement.

Section 157A: Protection of security of India

This is a powerful national security provision, allowing the Central Government to override transparency and patent rights in the interest of the country’s security.

157A(a) Withholding Information

The Central Government shall not disclose any information relating to any patentable invention or any application for a patent that it considers prejudicial to the interest of the security of India.

• Real-World Example: A patent application is filed for a new type of secure encryption algorithm. If the Ministry of Defence determines that publicly revealing the details of this algorithm would compromise national cybersecurity interests, the government can withhold the publication of the application, overriding the normal transparency rules.

157A(b) Government Action (Revocation)

The Central Government can take any action, including the revocation of any patent, that it considers necessary in the interest of the security of India by issuing a notification in the Official Gazette to that effect.

• Real-World Example: The government discovers that a granted patent covers a technology critical to a foreign adversary’s surveillance capabilities and believes maintaining the patent could facilitate its misuse against India’s interests. The government can issue a gazette notification immediately revoking the patent.

Explanation: Definition of “Security of India”

The term “security of India” is explicitly defined to include actions necessary for security which relate to:

1. Fissionable materials or the materials from which they are derived (i.e., nuclear technology).
2. The traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war, and related goods used for military establishments (i.e., defence technology).
3. Actions taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations.

Section 158: Power of High Courts to make rules

This section grants procedural authority to the judicial branch.

• Rule-Making Power: The High Court may make rules consistent with this Act as to the conduct and procedure in respect of all proceedings before it under this Act.
  • Real-World Example: The Bombay High Court can formulate specific rules detailing the formatting requirements, timelines for filing affidavits, and procedures for conducting cross-examinations when hearing a patent revocation petition under the Patents Act.

Section 159: Power of Central Government to make rules

This is the general enabling provision that allows the Central Government to draft the detailed rules (The Patents Rules) that govern the daily operation of the Patent Office.

159(1) General Power

The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act.

159(2) Specific Matters (Non-Exhaustive List)

Without limiting the general power above, the government may make rules for specific, detailed administrative matters, including (but not limited to):

• Clause (i): The form and manner for filing any application, specification, drawings, or documents.
• Clause (ia) – (ic): The prescribed periods for filing statements, undertakings (Section 8), and the rules governing the publication period (Section 11A).
• Clause (ii): The time limit for performing any act or thing required by the Act and the manner in which any matter is published.
• Clause (iii): The fees payable under the Act, along with the manner and time of payment.
• Clause (xiv): The manner in which the Register of Patent Agents is maintained and rules for the qualifying examinations for patent agents, including disciplinary proceedings.
  • Real-World Example: This sub-section is the foundation for the entire Patents Rules, 2003. For example, the Rule that specifies that the fee for filing a patent application is ₹1,600 for a natural person is established under the authority of Clause (iii) of this section.

159(3) Public Consultation

The power to make rules under this section is subject to the condition that the rules must be made after previous publication (meaning the draft rules must be published for public comment first).

• Proviso (Emergency Exemption): The Central Government may skip this public consultation if it is satisfied that circumstances exist which make it practically not possible to comply with such a condition (i.e., in cases of urgency).
  • Real-World Example: The government must first publish proposed changes to the Patents Rules (e.g., changing the fee structure) to allow industry, lawyers, and the public to submit feedback before the changes are finalized.

Section 160: Rules to be placed before Parliament

This is the accountability check on the Central Government’s rule-making power.

• Parliamentary Review: Every rule made under this Act must be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as possible after it is made, for a total period of thirty days.
• Rule Modification/Annulment: If both Houses agree to modify or annul the rule, it will thereafter have effect only in that modified form, or be of no effect.
• No Retroactive Harm: Any modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.
  • Real-World Example: If Parliament votes to cancel a newly introduced rule, any actions taken by the Patent Office or applicants while that rule was in force (like paying a new fee amount) remain valid.

Section 161: [Omitted]

This section, which dealt with “Special provisions with respect to certain applications deemed to have been refused under Act 2 of 1911” (the old law), has been omitted (deleted) by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002.

• Translated Meaning: This section was originally a transitional rule designed to handle specific pending patent applications that were deemed rejected under the prior law (the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911) when the 1970 Act came into force.
• Real-World Example: (Since the matter it addressed was resolved decades ago, and the provision was formally omitted in 2002, it is no longer relevant to current patent practice.)

Section 162: Repeal of Act 2 of 1911 in so far as it relates to patents and savings

This is a critically important section, as it officially marks the transition from the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, to the new Patents Act, 1970, ensuring legal continuity for older cases.

162(1) The Repeal

The Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911 (Act 2 of 1911), is hereby repealed insofar as it relates to patents. The Act of 1911 is formally amended in the manner specified in the Schedule of the 1970 Act.

• Translated Meaning: The 1970 Act did not abolish the 1911 Act entirely; it only removed the parts of the 1911 Act that dealt with patents. The remaining parts of the 1911 Act, concerning Industrial Designs, continued to exist (until the separate Designs Act, 2000 was enacted).
  • Real-World Example: Upon the commencement of the 1970 Act, if a lawyer needed to determine the validity of a patent granted in 1955, they would still apply the rules of the 1911 Act, but for all future applications and general patent matters, they would use the new 1970 Act.

162(2) & 162(3): [Omitted]

These sub-sections, which contained further savings and transitional clauses, were omitted by subsequent amendments.

162(4) General Savings Clause

The specific mentions of saving clauses in this section do not limit the general application of the General Clauses Act, 1897, with respect to the effect of repealing an old law.

• Translated Meaning: This is a legal failsafe. It confirms that if any transitional issue was missed in the 1970 Act, the general principles of statutory interpretation laid out in the General Clauses Act would govern how the repeal of the old patent law should be handled.
  • Real-World Example: If a pending court case related to an administrative penalty under the 1911 Act was not specifically addressed in the 1970 Act’s savings clauses, the General Clauses Act ensures that the old penalty provisions can still be applied to the old act’s breach.

162(5) Pending Suits

Notwithstanding anything else in the 1970 Act, any suit for infringement of a patent or any proceeding for revocation of a patent that was pending in any court at the commencement of this Act (1970) may be continued and disposed of as if this Act had not been passed.

• Translated Meaning: Any court case that was already ongoing before the 1970 Act came into force must be decided using the rules, laws, and procedures of the old 1911 Act.
  • Real-World Example: A company filed a lawsuit in 1969 alleging patent infringement. When the new 1970 Act became law, this lawsuit did not need to be refiled or modified. The court continued to hear the case, interpreting the patent and applying the defenses exactly as they existed under the 1911 Act.

Section 163: [Omitted]

This section, which dealt with the “Amendment of Act 43 of 1958” (specifically, the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958), has been omitted by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005.