SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(Del) 219

High Court Of Delhi
SURENDRA LAL MAHENDRA - Appellant
Versus
JAIN GLAZERS - Respondent
Interim Application 1871 of 1979
Decided On : 08/25/1980

Advocates Appeared:
ANUP SINGH, R.K.MAKHIJA

A patent is not valid if it lacks novelty and inventive step. A patentee must demonstrate that their invention is new and involves a significant improvement or modification over existing technology.

Headnote:

PATENT - INFRINGEMENT - AD INTERIM INJUNCTION - VALIDITY OF PATENT - NOVELTY - INVENTIVE STEP - COMPARISON OF DRAWINGS AND WORKING SYSTEM OF PLAINTIFF'S PATENTED APPARATUS AND DEFENDANT'S MACHINE - NO FUNDAMENTAL OR GLARING DIFFERENCE - PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE - EX PARTE INJUNCTION VACATED - DEFENDANTS DIRECTED TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO AND FURNISH QUARTERLY STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS - NO MANUFACTURE OF NEW LAMINATING APPARATUS - SECURITY/INDEMNITY BOND TO BE FURNISHED BY DEFENDANTS.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, a patentee of a laminating apparatus, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing his patent by manufacturing, selling, or using any apparatus for producing a laminate according to the said patent. The plaintiff claimed that his invention was a modified construction of a laminating machine using the wet process, which was different from the dry process used in his earlier patents. The defendants denied the validity of the patent, asserting that it was not novel, useful, or involved an inventive step. They claimed that the plaintiff's apparatus was a copy of the Morane Maxibond laminating machine, which was already known and used in India before the priority date of the plaintiff's patent.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiff's patent was not novel or inventive. It observed that the plaintiff's apparatus was substantially similar to the Morane Maxibond machine, with only minor differences. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case of infringement and vacated the ex parte injunction granted earlier. However, the court directed the defendants to maintain status quo, furnish quarterly statements of accounts, and provide a security/indemnity bond for potential damages to the plaintiff.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff's patent was valid and enforceable. 2. Whether the defendants infringed the plaintiff's patent by manufacturing and using a laminating apparatus. 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the patent.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff's patent was not valid because it lacked novelty and inventive step. The plaintiff's apparatus was substantially similar to the Morane Maxibond machine, which was already known and used in India before the priority date of the plaintiff's patent. The plaintiff had not made any significant improvements or modifications to the existing technology. 2. The court found that the defendants had not infringed the plaintiff's patent because their apparatus was not substantially similar to the plaintiff's patented apparatus. The defendants' apparatus did not incorporate the plaintiff's claimed invention, which was the use of a bow roller to prevent creasing in the lamination. 3. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to an ad interim injunction because he had failed to make out a prima facie case of infringement. The plaintiff had not demonstrated that his patent was valid or that the defendants had infringed it.

Final Decision: The court vacated the ex parte injunction granted earlier and directed the defendants to maintain status quo, furnish quarterly statements of accounts, and provide a security/indemnity bond for potential damages to the plaintiff.

J. D. JAIN

( 1 ) THE facts germane to the disposal of this application underorder 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with s. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for ad interim injunction concisely are that the plaintiff has instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their ser- vants, or agents etc. from infringing in any manner, patent No. 143964 dated 21st July, 1976 entitled laminating Apparatus of which he claims to be proprietor and patentee, by manufacture, sale or offering for sale or using any apparatus for producing a laminate according to the said patent and for rendition of accounts. It is averred that the invention known as laminating Apparatus relates to an apparatus for producing a laminate by wet process as distinguished from dry process; plaintiff being already grantee of patent No. 142811 dated 14th November, 1974 and patent No. 143168 of 1st of October, 1975 which are also in respect of an invention for laminating apparatus but by dry process. He asserts that an object of this invention i. e. patent in question, is to propose a modified construction of a laminating machine using the wet process and another object of thereof is to propose a laminating machine using the wet process and which is efficient.

( 2 ). Claim No. 1 of this patent is reproduced below for ready reference:

"a laminating apparatus comprising a plurality of guide rollers provided between a film feed roll and laminating rollers, means for applying an adhesive on said film. said means disposed between said feed roll and laminating rollers, and such to to provide a coating of an adhesive on one side of said film, said laminating roller being pressure and guide rollers for laminating the film on to a substrate characterised in the one of the said guide rollers constitute a heated roller and is provided in between the adhesive applying means and the laminating rollers in order to dry the applied adhesive on the said film. "it is further contended that the said patent is valid, subsisting and in force and it shall remain in force for a period of 14 years from the date of said patent and as such the plaintiff has exclusive right to the sale, use and manufacture of the construction claimed in the said patent, by virtue of the provision contained in Section 48 (1) of. . he Patent Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The plaintiff has; however, granted a licence to manufacture and sell the laminating apparatus to M/s. industrial Plastic Company, a partnership firm and the latter has manufactured several laminating machines for the purpose of laminating substrates for their events. However, defendents 1 and 3, defendant No. 3 being a partner in defendant No. 1, used to entrust laminating job by giving their substrates for lamination to M/s. Industrial Plastic Co. like other clients and they used to visit the factory of the said concern in this connection. During his visits to the factory of Industrial Plastic Co. , defendant No. 3 somehow managed to get the know-how of the plaintiff s invention and he has mischievously copied the same. It was towards the end of April, 1979 that the plaintiff came to know through M/s. Industrial Plastic Co. that defendants 2 and 3 had manufactured atleast one such apparatus which was identical to that of patent No. 143964 of the plaintiff and that the defendants were using the infringing apparatus for executing job work of their clients who were formerly getting their work done from the plaintiff s licensee M/s. Industrial Plastic Company. Thus according to the plaintiff, the said manufacture and use of the laminating apparatus by the defendants constitutes an act of infringement of his patent.

( 3 ). "the suit as well as this petition is resisted by the defendants/ respondents who deny the claim of the plaintiff to be proprietor of the patent in question. They assert that the said patent was already known, published and used in India as well as throughout the world, prior to the date of the a


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top