Company XYZ Ltd. has made invention on new water purifier technology and company has filed application for patent. The company fear about the PriorPublic use of that invention before the date of filing of application des

Prior public use of the invention before the date of filing of application destroys the novelty of the invention. However, there is an exception to this general rule. The Act provides that if an invention has been publicly worked in India within one year before the priority date by the patentee or applicant for the patent or by any third person from whom he derives the title or by the person who has obtained a consent to work the invention and such working of invention was only for the purpose of reasonable trial and it was necessary to effect such trial or working in public in view of the nature of the invention then such working of invention does not anticipate the invention The Indian patent law takes middle way and provides for grace periods in some conditions to evaluate anticipation. The Indian Patents Act mentions what are not anticipations in Sections 29 to 34, rather than defining anticipation. Exceptions are mentioned in the Indian Patent Act under which the patent application can be filed despite public disclosure, and such public disclosure will not be considered to have been anticipated. To conclude, one should file a patent application ideally prior to publicly disclosing the invention. However, in light of the provisions discussed above one can still contemplate patent application filing. Lack of novelty is usually referred to as 'anticipation and is determined by factors such as prior publication, public knowledge and public use. Commercialised products and selection inventions. While anticipation is not expressly defined in the Patent Act, Sections 29 to 34 identify what anticipation is not. When testing for anticipation, if a prior art exists (i.e. if the prior art describes something falling within the scope of an alleged claim) then, if by studying the prior art the claimed invention can be performed, the claim would be considered to be anticipated. It may be unnecessary to repeat the prior art test, but expert opinion may be considered in order to identify anticipation better using relevant expertise. It can also be identified by showing the predictable result as the outcome of what is described in the prior art, regardless of whether it would be a product or process falling within the scope of the claim. In India, a patent application is considered to be anticipated if the invention is disclosed in a patent or any other document which is published before the priority date of the application. However, if the inventor proves that the matter published was obtained fraudulently and was published without his or her consent, then it may not be considered to be anticipated. The concept for identifying prior publication was established in Farbewerke Hoechst Aktiengesellschuft Vormuls. Meister Lucius v. Unichem Laboratories, wherein the court held as follows: "To anticipate a patent, a prior publication or activity must contain the whole of the invention impugned; i.e., all the features by which the particular claim attacked is limited. In other words, the anticipation must be such us to describe, or be an infringement of the claim attacked." Likewise, in Lallubhai Chakubhai Jariwala v. Chimanlal Chunilal and Co. the court observed that: "the two features necessary to the validity of a patent are novelty and utility, but the real test is the novelty of the invention. Novelty is essential, for otherwise there would be no benefit given to the public and consequently no consideration moving from the patentee [while interpreting the factor related to public knowledge and public use." The court further held that "the next question is, whether the plaintiff's invention has been anticipated by prior public user. Has it been publicly used by the plaintiff and/or by others before the date of the application? Public user does not mean a user or exercise of the invention by the public, but a user or exercise in a public manner; and it is in every case a question of fact, If the invention is being put into practice before and at the date of the grant, the grant will not be for a new invention or manufacture, and this applies equally whether the invention is being practised by the patentee himself or by others. A use of the invention for the purposes of trade may constitute a prior user which invalidates the patent, and it has been held that the prior public sale of goods or articles treated according to the invention is a public user of the invention, for the sale is strong evidence that the user was really commercial and not experimental". In Monsanto Co. v. Coromandel Indag Products (P) Ltd. 1986 A.I.R. 712, it was held that "to satisfy the requirement of being publicly known as used in clauses (e) and (f) of section 64(1), it is not necessary that it should widely be used to the knowledge of the consumer public. It is sufficient if it is known to the persons who are engaged in the pursuit of knowledge of the patented product or process either as men of science or men of commerce or consumers."