Back
2011 Supreme(Kar) 1221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
N. Kumar, J.
Natural Remedies Private Limited A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 Having its Registered Office at Ashwathalakshmi Mansion No. 364 2nd Floor, 16th Main Road, 4th T Block Jayanagar Bangalore - 560041 Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Ram Lal Agarwal —Appellant
Vs.
Indian Herbs Research and Supply Co. Ltd., A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 Having its Registered Office at P.B. No. 5 Sharadanagar Saharanpur - 247001 U.P., India Represented by its Managing Director Mr. Susheel Kumar Agarwal, Mr. Susheel Kumar Agarwal S/o late Shri Ram Lal Agarwal Managing Director Indian Herbs Research and Supply Co. Ltd., No. 5 Sharadanagar Saharanpur - 247 001 U.P., India and Mr. Sudhakar Agarwal S/o Late Shri Ram Lal Agarwal Director Indian Herbs Research and Supply Co. Ltd., No. 5, Sharadanagar Saharanpur - 247001 U.P., India —Respondent
Orignal Suit No. 1 of 2004
Decided on : 09-12-2011
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. K.G. Raghavan, Sri G. L. Vishwanath, Sri Shayam Sunder -M/s. Fox Mandal and Associates, for the Appellant
Mr. Sajan Poovaiah, Smt. Sheila Rao, Sri Manu Kulkarni, M/s. Poovaiah and Co., for the Respondent
Headnote:PATENTS ACT, 1970 - Sections 1, 108, 104A, 64: [N. Kumar, J] Interpretation of provisions of Act - Under-standing of patent - Rule of purposive construction - Not applicable. Interpretation of statute - Rule of purposive construction - Applicability.
The plea that in understanding in patent, the Court has to adopt the purposive interpretation was the law before the law stepped in setting out clearly what the specification should contain. Once the law declares what are the particulars which the specification shall contain, if the specification does not contain those particulars, by adopting purposive construction the specifications cannot be read to include what is not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, the rule of purposive construction in the light of the statutory provisions has no application to the patent’s case.
N. Kumar J.—The plaintiff has filed this suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, producing or selling of the product Livoliv-250 by infringing the plaintiff's protected Patent rights under Patent No. 186857 of 20th April 1998 in the market and for other consequential reliefs.
PLEADINGS
The plaintiff is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a pioneer in the business of Ayurvedic Veterinary products credited with integrating a Scientific approach to the search of medicines and health supplements ensuring purity, safety and affordability. The plaintiff was formerly known as M/s. Indian Herbs Private Limited. It was founded in 1951, by late Sri. Ramlal Agarwal, an entrepreneur with profound knowledge of herbs and their medicinal benefits.
2. The defendant is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff and defendants had been operating the defendant company together upto 1996 under the name of M/s. Indian Herbs Research and Supply Company Limited. In 1996, the Company was divided into two separate entities or two separate divisions within the same company, namely M/s Indian Herbs Research and Supply Company, Saharanpur and M/s Indian Herbs Research and Supply Company, Bangalore. Over the years the plaintiff has diversified with its solutions that blend the understanding of the benefits of medicinal herbs with modern science to develop and provide herbal veterinary medicines, human health supplements and standardized herbal extracts. The plaintiff has also been awarded a number of patents and has also filed Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT) applications for this purpose. A list of Patents obtained and applied by the plaintiff is produced along with the plaint. Copies of patents awarded to the plaintiff company by the Patent Office, Government of India are also produced.
3. The Chairman and Managing Director of the plaintiff is one Ravindra Kumar Agarwal. The Managing Directors of the first defendant is the second defendant, Mr. Susheel Kumar Agarwal, and the third defendant is Sudhakar Agarwal. Ravi Kumar Agarwal, Susheel Kumar and Sudharkar Agarwal are all sons of late Sri. Ram Lai Agarwal.
4. The specific case pleaded by the plaintiff was that it had developed a product named Zigbir, a natural performance enhancer for broilers in the year 1998. It was invented by Mr. Amit Agarwal, who had assigned all his interest and rights in favour of the plaintiff Company. The plaintiff applied for a Patent titled "A method of preparing a herbal hepatoprotective and antlhepatotoxic composition" as an Assignee with the Patent Office, Chennai for the process of manufacturing said product Zigbir. The application was filed on 20th April 1998 and it was allotted an Application No. 079/MAS/98. The plaintiff had launched their production in the market in the year 1998 under the Trade Mark "Zigbir". The application of the plaintiff for the grant of Patent was duly examined in accordance with the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' and after being fully satisfied that the invention satisfied all the requirements for the grant of a patent, the plaintiff was granted a Patent (bearing Patent No. 186857) for the invention titled, "A method of preparing a herbal hepatoprotective and antihepatotoxic composition" dated 5th July 2002 by the Controller of Patents, India for a term of seven years from 20th April 1998 which was initially valid upto 20th April 2005. However, with the enactment of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 and the framing of the Patent Rules, 2003, the plaintiff's patent bearing No. 186857 has been subsequently extended for a period of twenty years from 20th April 1998 which expires on 20th April 2018. The certificate bearing No. 186857 evidencing the granting of Patent in favour of the plaintiff issued by the Controller of Patents,
