IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
Galatea Ltd & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation & Ors. – Respondents
R/CIVIL SUITS NO. 2 of 2017 With CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ) (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2018 In CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2019 In R/CIVIL SUITS NO. 2 of 2017 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 2 of 2019, CIVIL APPLICATION (COUNTER CLAIM) NO .1 OF 2022
Decided on : 05-04-2024
JUDGMENT :
| Sr. No. | Particulars | Paragraph nos. |
| I | Introduction | 1.1 to 1.10 |
| II | Plaint | 2.1 to 2.37 |
| III | Written Statement | 3.1 to 3.8 |
| IV | Oral and Documentary Evidence led by the plaintiffs and the defendants | 4.1 to 4.6 |
| V | Applications filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants | 5.1 to 5.17 |
| VI | Issues | 6.1 to 6.21 |
| VII | Submissions of plaintiffs A) On preliminary objections B) On merits | 7.1 to 7.25 7.26 to 7.57 |
| VIII | Submissions of defendants A) On preliminary objections B) On merits | 8.1 to 8.24 8.25 to 8.145 |
| IX | Counter claim filed by defendant nos. 4 and 5 for revocation of the suit patent | 9.1 to 9.76 |
| X | Reply/submission of the plaintiffs for counter claim – revocation of the suit patent | 10.1 to 10.45 |
| XI | Analysis A) Preliminary objections i) for applying section 58 of the Evidence Act ii) for not complying with section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 iii) to apply Order XI as per Commercial Courts Act, 2015 B) on merits C) counter claim |
11.1 to 11.9 11.10 to 11.14
11.15 to 11.19
11.20 to 11.137 11.138 to 11.151 |
| XII | Conclusions A) Issue No.1 B) Issue Nos.2 and 3 (counter claim) | 12.1 to 12.45 12.46 to 12.98 |
| XIII | Order | 1 to 3 |
I - Introduction
1.1 Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Yatin Oza, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Neeraj Malhotra and learned advocates Mr. Sandeep Grover, for the plaintiffs and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Saurabh N. Soparkar with learned advocate Mr. Tarun Khurana for the defendants.
1.2 The plaintiffs have filed this suit under the provisions of the Patent Act, 1970 for infringement of Patent No.271425 (here in after referred to as “the suit patent”) by the defendants and the defendants have filed the counter claim for revocation of Suit Patent.
1.3 The suit was originally filed before the District Court, Surat which was registered as Trade Mark Suit No.3/2017 which was transferred to the Commercial Court at Vadodara.
1.4 After the suit was transferred to Commercial Court, Vadodara, notices were issued to the defendants through their respective advocates and were served upon the defendants. Learned advocates for the parties thereafter filed witness lists vide Exhs.71 and 72. Learned advocate for the defendants filed additional witness lists vide Exhs.73 and 75.
1.5 Thereafter affidavits in lieu of examination in chief of the witnesses were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs at Exhs.76 to 84 and defendants filed affidavits in lieu of examination in chief of the witnesses vide Exhs.85 to 97. The District Court sent the affidavits received from both sides to the Commissioner for recording the deposition of the witnesses who filed the affidavits and rest of the witnesses though named for whom no affidavits were submitted, were brought as agreed by both the sides for recording their evidence. The Court Commissioner submitted his report vide Exhs. 102 to 109.
1.6 It appears that in view of the notification dated 08.05.2019, the Court Commissioner at Vadodara was disbanded by the High Court and original record and proceedings of the suit were sent back for further necessary action at the District Court, Vadodara.
1.7 Thereafter pursuant to the counter claim filed by the defendants for revocation of the suit patent, as per the provision of section 104 of the Patent Act, 1970 (For short “the Patent Act”) suit was transferred to this Court and was renumbered as Civil Suit No.2 of 2017. Thereafter this Court passed the orders for recording evidence by the Court Commissioner. The Court Commissioner submitted his reports regarding recording evidence from Exhs.110 to 115.
1.8 This Court (Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Chhaya, As His Lordship was then) by order dated 26.03.2018 decided the Exh.5 application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs by directing the defendants to maintain separate account for sale of any machine manufactured and/or sold by any of the defendants till the f
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer MANU/SC/0834/2014 : AIR 2015 SC 180
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 4908
Bishwanath Prasad Vs. Hindustan Metal Industries
Dr. NG Dastane v. S Dastane MANU/SC/0330/1975 : (1975) 2 SCC 326
F.C. Murlidhar v. Juggilal MANU/WB/0132/1955: AIR 1955 Cal. 465
Farbwerke Hoechst & B . Corporation v. Unichem Laboratories
Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly and others reported in (2008) 7 SCC 85
Grafitek International vs. K.K. Kaura & Ors. reported in 96 (2002) DLT 385
Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi reported in (2011) 11 SCC 786
Kashi Nath (Dead) through L.Rs. v. Jaganath MANU/SC/0882/2003 : (2003) 8 SCC 740
M. Siddiq (D) thr. L.Rs. v. Mahant Suresh Das and Ors. reported in 2019(15) Scale 1
M.M. Assabhoy v. M: Haridas AIR 1915 P.C. 2
Magraj Patodia v. R. K. Birla and Ors. MANU/SC/0322/1970 : [1971 2 SCR 118
Manoj Kumar Tiwari and others v. Manish Sisodia and others reported in 276 (2021) DLT 649
Mumbai Central, Mumbai F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v. Cipla Ltd.
Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam and others [AIR 1974 SC 471]
Narbada Devi Gupta versus Birendra Kumar Jaiswal
Novartis AG v. Union of India (UOI) and others
Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation) of Income-Tax
R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1973 SC 157
Sait Tarajee Khimchand versus Yelamarti Satyam
Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad & Ors. V/s. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad(dead) through LRs. & Ors.
Shubh Shanti Services Limited v. Manjula S. Agarwalla and Ors. MANU/SC/0387/2005 : (2005) 5 SCC 30
Siddik Mohd. Shah v. Saran MANU/PR/0021/1929: AIR 1930 PC 57
State Bank of Travancore v. Kingston Computers (I) P. Ltd reported in (2011) 11 SCC 524
State of UP v. Krishna Gopal MANU/SC/0506/1988 : (1988) 4 SCC 302
Sunil Chandra Ghosh v Hemendra Kr. Deb MANU/WB/0061/1985 AIR 1985 Cal. 233
Uday Shankar Triyar vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh & Anr. reported in (2006) 1 SCC 75
Union of India v. H.C. Goel MANU/SC/0271/1963: AIR 1964 S.C. 364
United Bank of India vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. reported in (1996) 6 SCC 660
Vemusetti Appayyamma v. Lakshman Sahu
Yashwant Sinha and Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others reported in AIR 2019 SC 1802
Ziaul Haque (Md.) v. Calcutta Vyapar Pratisthan MANU/WB/0119/1966: AIR 1966 Cal. 605
In patent infringement cases, plaintiffs must provide full disclosure and establish a prima facie case to obtain an injunction, which includes demonstrating the novelty of the patent.
Patents must demonstrate industrial applicability and inventive steps to be valid; prior judgments do not bind non-parties.
The court ruled that the patents were invalid due to lack of industrial applicability and inventive step, and that no infringement occurred as essential integers were missing from the alleged infring....
In patent infringement, independent claims and prosecution history define the inventive scope. If a patentee incorporates a feature in its independent claims to address a specific technical problem, ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.