In this suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. and Section 108 of the Patents Act, 1970, ("the Act" for short) the plaintiff seeks a decree for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2, their workers, agents and assignees from manufacturing or attempting to manufacture, selling or offering for sale any product covered by specifications of patent No. 176771 of 31-5-1990, during its validity and directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/-towards the loss incurred by the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum from the date of suit till reaslisation or in the alternative directing the defendants to furnish a full and true account of the money realised by sale of the driers manufactured and sold by infringing patent number 176771 of 31-5-1990.

THE PLAINT

2. The material plaint averments are as follows:- The plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and incorporated in the year 1987. The plaintiff is represented by its Managing Director K.I. Kuriakose. The registered office of the company is at Kizhakkambalam Village in Ernakulam District. The plaintiff company is a small scale industrial unit and is promoted by agriculturists to carry on the business of manufacturing, producing and designing of drying equipments for agricultural produces. One Sri. C.P. Philipose, who is one of the promoters of the company is a rubber cultivator and is a postgraduate in Engineering. It was he who invented a new device for drying of agricultural produces. The new invention was further developed in consultation with another rubber cultivator who had been a design engineer to TELCO and a new smoke house was developed. The plaintiff developed the prototype of the new device at the instance of the inventor.

The said prototype proved to be useful for drying ribbed rubber sheets and of immense use to the agriculturists. Some of the special features of the new invention are :

a) The drying chambers are almirah-like construction having top exit means to permit the escape of smoke and flue gas.

b) Furnace with fire splitters placed directly below the chambers.

c) The arrangement of the partition plates are in such a manner as to constrain the hot smoke and flue gas which enter the bottom most chamber to take a 'U' turn to enter the next chamber and so on.

d) Rubber sheets can be loaded and unloaded without the person entering the smoke house.

The new invention is noteworthy for its fuel efficiency, ease of use, portability and for getting better grades of dried rubber. After conducting tests for a long period of three years the plaintiff company decided to start commercial production of the newly invented driers. Before marketing the product to the rubber cultivators the plaintiff company contacted the Rubber Board at Kottayam and had preliminary discussions. The Department of Rubber Processing under the Rubber Board Kottayam, as per letter dated 3-11-1989 informed the plaintiff that they are deputing their Specifications Officer for a detailed evaluation on 15-11-1989. Sri. K.T. Mani (Specification Officer) conducted an evaluation and submitted his report dated 29-11-1989. After evaluation, the Rubber Board as per letter dated 30-11-1989 asked for detailed drawings of the two models intended to be marketed by the plaintiff. The detailed drawings were furnished and as per letter dated 12-6-1990 the Rubber Board accorded sanction to the plaintiff for marketing the two models of driers developed by it and which were tested and approved by the Rubber Board. The usefulness of the new invention was widely acclaimed by the rubber cultivators and the newspapers. Commercial production of the modern rubber sheet drier was started by the plaintiff by March 1990.

Advertisements were published in various newspapers and in a publication by name 'Rubber' issued by the Rubber Board. The driers manufactured by the plaintiff company have been marketed all over Kerala including the neighb