Back
High Court Of Delhi
STANDIPACK PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
OSWAL TRADING COMPANY LIMITED - Respondent
Interim Application 11829 of 1998
Decided On : 05/26/1999
PATENT - INJUNCTION - VALIDITY OF PATENT - POST-DATING OF PATENT - PRIOR PUBLICATION - INVENTION - DIFFERENCE IN CONSTRUCTION OF POUCHES - REVOCATION OF PATENT - CONFLICTING STAND OF PLAINTIFF - SUPPRESSION OF FACTS - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING GRANT OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IN PATENT MATTER.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, M/s. Standipack Private Limited, filed a suit for infringement, injunction, and rendition of accounts, alleging violation of their patent for a pouch for storage and dispensing of a liquid such as lubricating oil. The defendants filed written statements and reply to the injunction application, contending that the patent was granted illegally and in violation of the Patents Act, and that the goods in question were pre-published. They also filed petitions for revocation of the patent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the post-dating of the patent by the Controller of Patents was in violation of Section 9 of the Patents Act, and that the patent was pre-published and publicly known and used in India before the priority date of claim. The court also found that the invention claimed by the plaintiff was not novel and did not satisfy the test of invention as envisaged in the Patents Act. The court further found that there was a difference in the construction of the pouches of the plaintiff and of the defendants, and that the plaintiff had taken a conflicting stand in respect of the pouch and layers in the plaint vis-a-vis the replication.
Issues: 1. Whether the patent was granted to the plaintiff after following the requirements and procedure as laid down under the Patents Act and as to whether post-dating of the application is in violation and/or against the law? 2. Whether patent in question was prior published and if so whether the plaintiff is dis-entitled from seeking any injunction? 3. Whether the pouch as against which patent is claimed is really an invention within the meaning of the definition clause of the Patents Act? 4. Whether there is any difference in the construction of the two pouches and if so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to grant of injunction? 5. Since an application for revocation of the patent is filed what is the effect of such an application being pending and whether under such circumstances plaintiff could be granted a temporary injunction? 6. What is the effect, if there be a conflicting stand of the plaintiff in respect of the pouch and layers in the plaint vis-a-vis the replication? 7. Whether there was any suppression of facts by the plaintiff and if so, its effect on the issue of grant of temporary injunction?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case for the grant of temporary injunction in its favour. The court also held that the injunction as sought for was refused on the ground that the plaintiff did not act with clean hands rather suppressed material fact from the Court at Ambala where a suit was instituted by the plaintiff against one of the defendants.
Final Decision: The application seeking for interim injunction stands rejected and the applications filed under Order 39, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code stand allowed. The injunction order granted by Ambala Court stands vacated.
( 1 ) BY this common order I propose to dispose of the applications registered as I. A. 11829/1998,774/1999 and 775/1999 in Suit No. 2391 /199. S; I. A. 9131/1996and1530/1997insuitno. 2428/1996;i. A. 1207/1997,2588/1997and3368/1997 in Suit No. 289/1997; I. A. 7489/1995 in Suit No. 1669/1994, I. A. 7749/1996 in Suit No. 1970/1995, I. A. 9132/1996 and 4746/1998 in Suit No. 2427/1996 and I. A. 7374/1995 in C. O. No. 25/1995. For convenience sake, the plaintiff in Suit No. 2391 /1998, M/s. Standipack Private Limited is being described as the plaintiff throughout in the present order and the other parties are described as defendants. Injunction applications have been filed by the plaintiff seeking for a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or using the patented pouch of the plaintiff. The case sought to be made out by the plaintiff in the injunction applications is that the patent in respect of pouch for storage and dispensing of a liquid such as lubricating oil was granted to the plaihtiff by the Controller of Patents. Corresponding patents have also been granted to the plaintiff in various other developed countries including USA, Europe and Australia. It is stated that subsequent thereto it has come to the notice of the plaintiff that the defendants have started selling pouches of the same construction as the patented pouches of the plaintiff and thereby violating the patent inasmuch as even sale/marketing of the said pouches would constitute violation of the patent. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit for infringement, injunction and rendition of accounts and also for temporary injunction alleging violation of the patent by the defendants and therefore,granting interlocutory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the said defendants from infringing the patent of the plaintiff and restraining them from manufacturing, selling pouches as those patented by the plaintiff.
( 2 ) VARIOUS defendants appeared in the suits by filing written statement and reply to the injunction application contending inter alia that the patent was granted to the plaintiff illegally and in violation of the provisions of the Patents Act and the rules framed therein and in few of which applications have been filed by various parties seeking for revocation of the patent granted. It is also stated that the goods in question were pre-published and therefore, the same was not entitled to be granted patent. It is also stated that there was suppression of material facts and variations in the stand of the plaintiff in the plaint and the stand taken at the time of arguments and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any injunction as sought for. It was also stated that post-dating of the application of the plaintiff is also in violation of the provisions of the Act and that there is vital and marked difference in the pouches of the plaintiff and that of the various other parties namely-the defendants and therefore, no injunction should be granted in favour of the plaintiff. Indian Oil Corporation and Castrol India have filed petitions praying for revocation of patent, which are registered as C. 0. 25/1995 and C. 0. 11/1998 respectively.
( 3 ) MR. Lekhi appearing for the plaintiff in support of the case of the plaintiff placed reliance on the various relevant provisions of the Patents Act particularly the definition of invention , patented article and patented process as appearing in the provisions of Sub-sections 2 (j) and 2 (0) of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter called the Act ). Reliance was also sought to be placed on the provisions of Sections 9, II and 17of the Act. Reliance was also placed on the provisions of Section 25 and Section 48 of the Act. It was submitted by him that the patent which was granted in favour of the plaintiff and sealed is in fact in respect of the construction of co-extruded layers of the pouch and not in respect of a stand-up or pillow or any
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
