Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 272
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Devashis Baruah, J.
M/s Sumotek Innovation Pvt Ltd. and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. and Anr. – Respondents
FAO/1/2024
Decided On : 19-03-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. B J Mukherjee
IMPORTANT POINT
The expiration of the patent and the balance of convenience are crucial factors in determining the grant of injunction under the Patents Act, 1970.
Headnote:
Patents - Injunction Application - Patents Act, 1970 - Section 108, Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure - [Patents] - [Patents Act, 1970, Section 108, Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Section 151] - The court discussed the validity of the injunction application under the Patents Act, 1970 and the procedural requirements under the Code of Civil Procedure. It highlighted the importance of locus standi and the expiration of the patent in determining the grant of injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration of right, title and interest in a patent, compensation, and permanent injunction. The trial court rejected the injunction application on the grounds of lack of locus standi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had the locus standi to file the suit but did not have a prima facie case for grant of an injunction. It declined to interfere with the trial court's order and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Locus standi of the plaintiff, validity of the injunction application, expiration of the patent, and balance of convenience.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff had the locus standi to file the suit but did not establish a prima facie case for grant of an injunction. The expiration of the patent and the balance of convenience were crucial factors in the court's decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
The instant appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) is directed against the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Misc(J) Case No. 60/2022 arising out of Title Suit No. 02/2022. It is relevant to mention at this stage that in the impugned order it has been mentioned as Misc(J) Case No. 60/2023 which ought to have been Misc(J) Case No. 60/2022.
2. From the materials on record it transpires that the Appellant No. 1 and the Appellant No. 2 as plaintiffs have instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 02/2022 being aggrieved by the actions of the defendants in using the patent of the plaintiffs. Under such circumstances, the said suit was filed seeking declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the patent bearing No. 208216 which was granted with effect from 13.05.2004 for a period of 20 (Twenty) years; for compensation and damages along with a prayer for permanent and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, attorneys, agents or any other person claiming under them from manufacturing, selling, installing, using or otherwise dealing with the smart meters or products under whatever name using the technology and process invented and patented by the plaintiff No. 2 as prepaid-postpaid electricity supply machine under Patent No. 208216. Along with the said suit the plaintiffs also filed an injunction application under Section 108 of the Patents Act, 1970 read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code. The ad-interim injunction which was sought for was similar to the relief of permanent injunction sought for in the suit.
3. The record reveals that the defendant No. 2 had filed a written statement in the suit and a written objection to the injunction application. Various preliminary objections were raised to the maintainability of the suit as well as on the merits, the case of the plaintiffs was denied. Further to that it is also seen that there was an additional written statement filed bringing further additional pleadings.
4. The written objection so filed also states that the plaintiffs have not been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of injunction and the entire case of the plaintiff No. 1 is on a concocted story. On the basis of the said pleadings, more particularly, the injunction application, the plaint and the documents and the written objections so filed by the defendant No. 2, the learned Trial Court heard the injunction application and vide the impugned order dated 20.09.2023 rejected the said injunction application.
5. This Court has duly perused the said order impugned in the instant proceedings. In the said order, it is seen that the learned Trial Court though observed that there is an agreement between the plaintiff No. 1 and the plaintiff No. 2 but there is no stipulation in the agreement as to what are the terms and conditions of the agreement between the plaintiff No. 1 and the plaintiff No. 2. It was also observed that there was no authority letter from the plaintiff No. 2 to institute the instant suit by the plaintiff No. 1 for and on behalf of the plaintiff No. 2 with regard to the contract between the opposite parties in the year 2021 i.e. prior to entering into agreement vide Annexure-C. On that basis, the learned Trial Court without further dealing with the principles for grant of an injunction dismissed application on the ground that the plaintiff No. 1 had no locus standi to file the case. Being therefore aggrieved the instant appeal has been filed.
6. This Court have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants as well as the respondents and have also perused the materials available on records including the patent certificate issued by the Controller of Patents of Government of India in respect to the Patent No. 208216. From a perusal of the said certificate, it reveals that the said certificate wa
