The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and confirms the jurisdiction of the Controller to deal with applications for amendment of patent specifications.

JUDGMENT

Panckridge, J. - The circumstances in which this Rule has been issued upon the National Carbon Company, Incorporated, and upon the Controller of Patents are as follows:

The National Carbon Company, Incorporated, carry on business in New York, where they manufacture and export dry cell batteries for flashlights and electric torches. They are the grantees of Indian Patent No. 17148 of 1930. In the specification, which was accepted on 8th December 1930, the invention is described as relating "to dry cells and particularly to improved means of closing and sealing such cells." I shall hereafter refer to the National Carbon Company, Incorporated, as "the patentees.

2. The Bright Star Battery Company are incorporated in the United States of America, and they also manufacture and export dry cell batteries for flashlights. They offer their goods for sale in India through Messrs. Brough & Co., a firm carrying on business in Bombay. In December 1931, the patentees instituted a suit on the original side of this Court against Messrs. Brough & Co., alleging that the batteries manufactured by the Bright Star Company were an infringement of their patent and claiming an injunction and damages. The defendants denied the infringement, and also put in issue the validity of the patent and raised certain objections to the specification and claim. The nature of the defendants' contentions is apparent from the following issues among those formulated in the course of the trial:

Issue 1.Is the plaintiff company the true and first inventor of the annular metal cover?

Issue 2.Is the patent in respect of the same invalid?

Issue 9 Is the alleged invention sufficiently ascertained or described in the specification?

Issue 10.Does the claim contain a distinct statement of the invention? Is it ambiguous, misleading and wide?

3. On 17th January 1933, when the evidence had been closed, counsel for the patentees, who was then in the course of making his final reply on behalf of his clients, applied for leave to serve short notice for the following day of an application u/s 18, Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911. Leave was refused by Buckland, J., for reasons given in a judgment delivered by him on that day. The concluding paragraph of the judgment is as follows:

I refuse leave to serve short notice of motion. This does not of course preclude the plaintiff company from making any application which it may be advised to make upon such notice as the rules require.

4. The patentees thereupon serve the defendants with notice that an application would be made on 23rd January 1933, that the patentees should be allowed to amend the specification in the suit, namely the specification in Indian latent No. 17148 of 1930, by correcting and explaining the printed Indian specification in terms of the prayer of the petition. On 23rd January 1933, as appears from the order of that day, counsel for the patentees, when the application was called on stated to the Court that he had no instructions to proceed with the application, which was accordingly dismissed with costs. On 3rd February 1933, Buckland, J., dismissed the suit with costs. The following is an extract from his judgment:

In my judgment neither the plaintiff company nor its assignor was the true and first inventor of the annular metal cover and the defendant company has not infringed the plaintiff company's patent in the manner sat forth in issue 3. I also hold that the invention is not new nor proper subject matter for a patent, and that the specification, and in particular the claim are ambiguous and too wide, and that the alleged invention was anticipated by the prior publication in India of the patent granted to Tarver in England in 1917.

5. On the same day immediately upon judgment being pronounced, the patentees through Messrs. Remfry & Sons, patent and trade mark attorneys, presented an application u/s 17 of the Act to the Controller of Patents for leave to amend the specification of their patent. The applicatio