Back
High Court Of Delhi
RAM NARAIN KHER - Appellant
Versus
AMBASSADOR INDUSTRIES NEW DELHI - Respondent
Interim Application 2392 of 1974
Decided On : 05/28/1975
PATENT INFRINGEMENT - INDIAN PATENTS AND DESIGNS ACT, 1911 - SECTIONS 2(I), 10(4), 64(1) - VALIDITY OF PATENT - SUFFICIENCY OF CLAIM - INJUNCTION - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, claiming to be the registered proprietor of an Indian patent for an air cooler, sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing the patent. The defendants contested the validity of the patent, arguing that the claims were vague and did not describe the invention clearly and properly.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's claim did not adequately describe the invention and its advantages, and that the defendants had raised arguable matters disputing the validity of the patent. The court also noted that the plaintiff had not established the validity of the patent in a judicial proceeding.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff's claim adequately described the invention and its advantages? 2. Whether the defendants had raised arguable matters disputing the validity of the patent? 3. Whether the plaintiff had established the validity of the patent in a judicial proceeding?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff's claim was insufficient because it did not succinctly state the novelty or advantage of the invention, and left the meritorious element of principle or idea to be inferred from a general review of the specification. 2. The court found that the defendants had raised arguable matters disputing the validity of the patent by specifically alleging that the claims were vague and did not describe the invention clearly and properly. 3. The court noted that the plaintiff had not established the validity of the patent in a judicial proceeding, and that this was a relevant factor in considering whether to grant an interim injunction.
Final Decision: The court vacated the interim injunction granted by the lower court and directed the defendants to maintain correct and regular accounts of their business in respect of the coolers.
( 1 ) THE plaintiff claiming to be the registered proprietor and grantee of Indian Patent No. 113388 dated 29th November, 1967 pertaining to air cooler by this application under Order 39. Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code seeks an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and representatives from adopting the method and process for manufacturing, selling or offering, far sale air coolers in infringement of the plaintiff s aforesaid patent with further relief for rendition at accounts.
( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that he has legal right to the aforementioned patent for the period ending 29th November, 1983. and to refrain others from exploiting the said patent rights without permisson from him. According to the plaintiff the air cooler of the subject patent has distinct. advantages over the air cooler presently known in the art and that the coolers of the subject patent have acquired status and reputation. The grievance of the plaintiff is that in January, 1974, he came to hnow that the defendants have infringed and further intend to infrinffe the aforesaid patent by wrongfully adopting the plaintiffs process and method without his permission and are selling their coolers in Delhi. The plaintiff accordingly avers that he is incurring heavy loss due to the adoption of his patent and due to manufacturing, selling or offering for sale air coolers by the defendants.
( 3 ) THE defendants in their reply resisted the application, inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff s patent, if any, was not valid and had been known in India and abroad much prior to the date of the alleged patent, i. e. . 29th November, 1967; that the claims made by the plaintiff in the patent were vague and did not describe the invention clearly and properly; that the patent was likely to be revoked on the ground that the air cooler of the plaintiff has no advantage and had been obtained by playing fraud on the patent office; that the subject of any claim of the complete specification is not an invention within the meaning of the Indian Patents and Designs Act. 1911; that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is obvious and did not involve any inventive step; and that the complete specification did not sufficiently and fairly describe the invention and the method by which it is to be performed.
( 4 ) "invention" as defined in Section 2 (i) of the Patents Act. 1970. (here-in called the Act") means any new and useful (i1 art, process, method or manner of manufacture; (ii) machine, apparatus or other articles; (iii) substance produced by manufacture and includes any new and useful improvement of any of them, and an alleged invention.
( 5 ) IT would, therefore, be seen that having regard to the previous date of knowledge at the time the patent is granted to a party it is essential that the party claiming patent should specify what Particular features of his device distinguish it from those which had gone before and show the nature of the improvement which is said to constitute the invention.
( 6 ) A person claiming a patent has not only to allege the improvement in art in the form but also that the improvement effected a new and very useful addition to the existing state of knowledge.
( 7 ) THE novelty or the invention has to be succinctly stated in the claim.
( 8 ) THE function of the claim is "to define the scope of the invention claimed". Claim must be clear. The applicant must describe the advantage sought to be achieved by his invention in the claim.
( 9 ) IN Clay v. Allcock and Co. Ltd. , 1906 (23) RFC 745 it was observed that "it is a part of the duty of a patentee to tell the public of his claim, taken with the specifications and drawings, what he claims as his own and what, therefore, they (the opposite party) must not do without infringing the patent; in other words he "must mark out with adequate distinctiveness. the boundary of the territory that he
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
