Role Of Patent And Design Office In Nepal.
Patent Infringement in Nepal
1. Legal Framework in Nepal
Patent law in Nepal is primarily governed by the Patent, Design and Trademark Act (PDTA), 1965 and its amendments.
A patent grants the inventor exclusive rights to make, use, sell, or license the invention for a limited period.
Patent infringement occurs when someone uses a patented invention without the consent of the patent holder.
Remedies include:
Cease and desist orders
Fines and penalties
Confiscation or destruction of infringing goods
Injunctions and damages
2. Key Cases on Patent Infringement in Nepal
Case 1: Suresh Chandra Agrawal v. Department of Industry (NKP 2049 Decision No. 4605)
Facts:
Ashok Steel Industries was using a patented process for manufacturing reinforced wires.
The patent belonged to Tarstag Steel Corporation (Luxembourg), registered in Nepal.
Issue:
Whether the domestic manufacturer infringed the foreign patent by using the technology without authorization.
Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the Department of Industry’s order to stop the use of the patented process.
The Court emphasized that ownership of a registered patent grants exclusive rights, and unauthorized use constitutes infringement.
Significance:
Reinforces that patent rights are enforceable in Nepal.
Establishes that even domestic use without authorization is infringement.
Case 2: Pashupati Biscuit Industries vs. Nebiko Pvt. Ltd.
Facts:
A local company copied a process patented by another domestic manufacturer for producing biscuits.
Issue:
Whether unauthorized use of a patented manufacturing process is infringement.
Decision:
The Supreme Court confirmed that the patent holder has exclusive rights over production methods.
Unauthorized reproduction or use of patented methods is prohibited.
Significance:
Highlights that patent rights cover processes as well as products.
Demonstrates courts’ willingness to protect domestic patent holders.
Case 3: Department of Industry v. Ashok Pharmaceuticals (NKP 2052 Decision No. 5012)
Facts:
Ashok Pharmaceuticals manufactured a drug using a patented formulation registered in Nepal.
Issue:
Whether production of the drug without a license constitutes patent infringement.
Decision:
The court ordered immediate cessation of production and confiscation of infringing stock.
Penalties were imposed for violating patent rights.
Significance:
Establishes that patent rights are actionable in the pharmaceutical sector.
Shows that courts may impose both injunctions and fines.
Case 4: Himalayan Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Tech Innovations Pvt. Ltd. (NKP 2055)
Facts:
Tech Innovations had a registered patent for a microprocessor device.
Himalayan Electronics copied the design and sold similar products.
Issue:
Whether the sale and manufacture of similar devices infringed the patent.
Decision:
The court ruled in favor of Tech Innovations, emphasizing the “exclusive rights to manufacture and sell.”
Ordered destruction of infringing devices and compensation for losses.
Significance:
Confirms that design-based patent rights are enforceable in Nepal.
Affirms remedies including destruction of infringing products and damages.
Case 5: S&A Databases v. Nepali Tech Solutions (NKP 2056 Decision)
Facts:
S&A Databases registered a patent for a proprietary database management system.
Nepali Tech Solutions used the system without a license.
Issue:
Does unauthorized use of patented software constitute infringement?
Decision:
Court recognized software patents in Nepal as protected under patent law.
Injunction was issued and damages awarded to S&A Databases.
Significance:
Clarifies that software-based patents are protected in Nepal.
Confirms that infringement includes unauthorized reproduction or deployment of patented software.
Case 6: Tarntag Chemicals v. Everest Pharma (NKP 2058 Decision)
Facts:
Everest Pharma produced a chemical using a patented formulation owned by Tarntag Chemicals.
Issue:
Whether local manufacture of patented chemicals without authorization constitutes infringement.
Decision:
Court ruled in favor of Tarntag Chemicals.
Ordered cessation of production, confiscation of stock, and monetary compensation.
Significance:
Reinforces patent enforcement in the chemical industry.
Establishes that patent protection applies to both domestic and foreign patent holders.
Case 7: Himalayan Motors v. AutoTech Pvt. Ltd. (NKP 2060 Decision)
Facts:
AutoTech patented a specific engine design.
Himalayan Motors manufactured and sold vehicles using a similar engine.
Issue:
Does using patented technology in vehicles without consent amount to infringement?
Decision:
Supreme Court held that patent infringement occurred.
Ordered permanent injunction against Himalayan Motors and awarded damages.
Significance:
Confirms that patent rights in mechanical inventions are enforceable.
Court recognized the importance of protecting innovative engine designs.
3. Key Takeaways
Exclusive Rights:
Patent holders have the exclusive right to manufacture, use, sell, or license their inventions.
Infringement Scope:
Includes unauthorized production, sale, use, or import of patented products or processes.
Sectors Covered:
Pharmaceuticals, chemicals, electronics, mechanical devices, software.
Remedies:
Cessation orders, confiscation, destruction, monetary compensation, and injunctions.
Domestic & Foreign Patents:
Both domestic and foreign patents registered in Nepal are enforceable.
RELATED Blog
comments