Patent Agent Examination 2025| Paper 2 (II) | Question no 2

Mr. Hariharan is the owner of a small tech start-up company that has recently developed an

innovative tool for managing customer relationships. Mr. Hariharan has been working hard to gain traction in the market. One day, he receives a letter from a large company, Macrocust Corporation, which claims that Mr. Hariharan’s product infringes on their patent for a similar tool. The letterdemands that he should stop selling his product immediately or face a lawsuit for patent infringement. The letter neither provided any information about the patent nor any clear evidence or legal grounds for the threat, but insists that they will take legal action if Mr. Hariharan does not comply. Distressed by the threat, Mr. Hariharan decides to consult you as a person well versed in the patent law. What would be your suggestions to Mr. Hariharan with regard to the following:

a. Mention the legal actions under the Patents Act that Mr. Hariharan may take in response toMacrocust Corp's threatening letter along with the possible relief sought? 

b. In such a proceeding, under what conditions the court may grant the relief sought?

Ans: 

Suggestions for Mr. Hariharan

a. Legal Actions and Possible Relief under the Patents Act, 1970:

1. Action under Section 105 (Declaration of Non-Infringement):

   • Mr. Hariharan can file a suit for a declaration of non-infringement.
   • This action requires Macrocust Corporation to provide details of their patent and prove infringement.
   • Relief sought: A declaration that Mr. Hariharan’s tool does not infringe the patent.

2. Action under Section 106 (Relief in Cases of Groundless Threats):

   • Mr. Hariharan can file a suit against Macrocust Corporation for groundless threats of infringement.
   • The threatening letter lacked patent details and legal grounds, falling under "groundless threats."
   • Relief sought:
     • An injunction to stop further threats.
     • Damages for any harm caused by the threat.

b. Conditions for Granting Relief:

1. Declaration of Non-Infringement (Section 105):

   • Mr. Hariharan must provide evidence that his product does not infringe the claims of the alleged patent.
   • The court may require Macrocust Corporation to disclose patent details and substantiate their claims.

2. Relief for Groundless Threats (Section 106):

   • The court must be satisfied that:
     • The threats were unjustified and lacked legal basis.
     • Macrocust Corporation failed to prove infringement.
   • Damages will be granted if Mr. Hariharan demonstrates harm (e.g., loss of reputation or business).

Recommendation: Mr. Hariharan should engage a patent attorney to evaluate potential infringement and initiate appropriate legal action while maintaining records of communication with Macrocust Corporation.