The complete specifications of a patent must sufficiently and clearly describe the invention and the method by which it is to be performed, and the claims of the specification must be sufficiently and clearly defined.

Salil K.Roy Chowdhury

1. THIS is an application for revocation of a patent under Sec. 64(1) of the Patent Act, 1970. The respondents are : (1) James Mackie Holdings Ltd., (2) Sugan Engineering (P) Ltd. and (3) Controller of Patents.

2. IT appears that two of the patents have already expired and the third one will shortly expire. The respondents who appeared through Mr. Khanna, Advocate on Record, initially asked for some time for considering the question whether they are going to defend the proceedings. In view of the fact that two of the patents have already expired and the third one is going to expire very soon and as the matter was fixed long time ago specially and as the plaintiff's council Mr. S. B. Shah has come from Bombay to appear in this matter, it was not possible for me to adjourn the matter and I refused any adjournment. Mr. Khanna thereafter asked for leave to retire from the proceedings which was granted. Mr. P. K. Dutt, Advocate on Record, who also appeared for respondent No. 2 also asked for leave to retire from the proceedings. On the next occasion Mr. Rajan Dutt appeared and submitted that no costs should be allowed against respondent No. 2 in case the Court revoked the patent in these proceedings. Mr. Shah was fair enough to submit that he will not ask for costs against the respondents who were not appearing in these proceedings. The Controller of Patents has also not appeared but represented through a letter to this Court that he is not interested in the matter and the whatever order the Court will pass in these proceedings he will abide by the same.

The present application relates to three patents being patents Nos. 87007, 87008 and 87009 in respect of improvements relating to flyers for spinning and twisting machines. The patentees are respondent No. 1 James Mackie Holdings Ltd. and respondent No. 2 Sugan Engineering (P) Ltd.

3. THE petitioners claim, as manufacturers of machinery for textile and jute industry, that through their research and development department they have developed several improvements in jute spinning machinery including the flyers and had applied for patents for such improvement. THE petitioners claim that they have put in the market in the middle of 1974 the designation S-4 flyer incorporating some improvements of its own invention in respect of which an application for patent has been pending before the authority. THEn after June 1976 the petitioner discontinued marketing of this said flyer S-4 and put in its place another flyer under the designation S-5 incorporating other improvements of its own invention which are now under application for a patent.

4. BY its advocate's letter dated May 20, 1977, the respondent No. 2 charged the petitioner for the infringement of the said patents Nos. 87008 and 87009 by its flyer on the market and threatened action. Thereafter the petitioners filed a suit and ultimately presented this petition on the 28th January, 1977 revocation of the said patents Nos. 87007, 87008 and 87009 on various grounds alleged in paragraph 11 and sub-paragraph (a) thereof which are practically the grounds mentioned in Section 64(1)(b)(i) and (j) of the Patent Act, 1970.

5. THE petitioner called one Binayak Anant Wakankar who is a highly qualified textile machinery technologist to give evidence on their behalf. THE petitioners also tendered the certified copy of the documents and papers filed before the Registrar in respect of the said patents Nos. 87007, 87008 and 87009.

6. FROM the evidence it is clearly established by the petitioners that the grounds made out in the petition by the petitioners have been substantiated by oral evidence of the said expert called on behalf of the petitioners i.e. the complete specifications of the said patent do not sufficiently and clearly describe the respective inventions and method by which it is to be performed and it is quite clear from the evidence that the said specifications by themselves are not sufficient to enable a pe