In another significant development, the Delhi High Court in their decision in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v Mercury Electronics & Anr. CS(OS) 442/2013 has held that the burden to prove invalidity squarely falls upon the Defendant (party claiming invalidity) since it is their assertion. Assuming no evidence is led with respect to invalidity, the Defendant would lose. Section 114 of the Evidence Act creates a presumption of validity of the suit patent which was granted in the common course of public business under the provisions of the Patents Act.
The Court further held that the reliance placed by the Defendant on the case of Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam is misplaced holding that “… Bishwanath was premised on Section 13(4) of the Patents Act, according to which there is no presumption of validity of a patent only to the extent that no liability shall be incurred by the Central Government or any other officer thereof in connection with the grant of patent.”