N.Solomon v. S.A.Safiullah and The Controller of Patents Patent Office

In the high-stakes world of intellectual property, timing is everything. Filing a legal challenge against a competitor's patent can be a brilliant strategic move — but only if that patent is still alive. When a petitioner walks into court asking to revoke a patent that has already run out its clock, the result is not just a loss; it is a public demonstration of poor legal judgment. This case stands as a sharp reminder that founders and IP professionals must verify the live status of any patent before pulling the trigger on litigation.

The dispute unfolded between N. Solomon, the petitioner, and S. A. Safiullah, the respondent. At the center of the conflict was Patent No. 198079, which had been granted to S. A. Safiullah. N. Solomon, believing there were grounds to challenge the validity of this patent, filed a petition seeking its revocation. The petition was heard on 17 April 2023. However, before the court could even examine the substantive merits of the revocation request, a fundamental problem surfaced — one that would prove fatal to the petitioner's cause.

The petitioner's argument centered on the premise that Patent No. 198079 should be revoked, presumably on grounds of invalidity or non-compliance with patentability requirements. The respondent, S. A. Safiullah, held the patent rights granted by the relevant patent office. The legal friction, however, was not about the technical merits of the patent itself. Instead, the court itself raised a critical threshold issue: the term of the patent in question had already expired. This procedural reality rendered the entire revocation petition moot, regardless of how strong the petitioner's underlying arguments might have been.

The court dismissed the petition. The reasoning was straightforward and devastating in its simplicity: the patent whose revocation was being sought had already expired. Once a patent's term has lapsed, there is no live right left to revoke. The patent exists in name only, and any challenge to its validity becomes an exercise in futility. The court did not need to delve into the substantive grounds for revocation because the procedural foundation of the case had already collapsed. The petition was thrown out, leaving the petitioner with nothing to show for the time, effort, and legal costs invested.

Before initiating any patent revocation or infringement action, founders and IP professionals must conduct a thorough due diligence check on the current legal status of the patent in question. Confirm whether the patent is still in force, when it was granted, and when its term is set to expire. Pursuing a revocation petition against an expired patent is not just a waste of resources — it can also expose your own legal strategy to scrutiny without any corresponding benefit. Always verify the live status of IP rights before you litigate, and ensure your legal counsel performs a comprehensive validity and enforceability assessment as a first step.