The judgment establishes the principle that for a device to be considered an invention under the Patents Act, it must involve an inventive step and not merely be an aggregation of known products.

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP No. 530 of 2005 in Civil I Suit No. 69 of 2005 rejecting the prayer of the appellants-plaintiffs for I grant of interim relief.

2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the appellants, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, filed a suit seeking grant of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from infringing patent No. 195917 granted in favour of the plaintiffs on 11.7.2005. The patent has been granted in respect of a device used for manufacture of manually hauling the agricultural produce. According to the plaintiffs, the invention was visualized by them in 1999. They developed it over a period of time and applied for grant of patent on 24.5.2000. The patent was granted in their favour on 11.7.2005 but it will relate back to the date of application i.e. 24.5.2002. The invention of the plaintiffs as set out by them in the plaint is as follows:— "A device for hauling agriculture produce comprising a contained of synthetic polymeric material defined by a hollow frusta-conical body open at he top and closed at the based and tapering from the operative open at the top and closed at the based and tapering from the operative open top to the base with perforated walls said perforations being essentially quadrilateral in configuration and reducing in dimensions from the operative top to the base; said wall having a contour adapted to proximate the back of a human body; and removable harnessing means secured to the container in the upper perforations, said harnessing means having straps and buckle formations adapted to be irremovably secured in and around the perforations in the said walls and looping means around the back and the shoulders of an individual, said straps and buckle components of the harnessing means being adjustable to permit the harnessing means to be secured to the container at varying locations on the wall of the container in the perforations and the looping means adapted to be adjusted to accommodate individuals of different heights and body structure."

3. The plaintiffs further alleged that the respondent-defendant, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, in fact, sold this device to the Department of Horticulture, Government of H.P. and other private parties. The plaintiffs consequently filed a suit praying for a decree for grant of permanent prohibitory injunction in their favour restraining the defendant from infringing the patent No. 195917 and also for a decree of mandatory injunction virtually in the same terms. The plaintiffs also prayed that the defendant be directed to pay them Rs. 51 lacs.

4. The defendant contested the suit and contended that the plaintiffs1 have fraudulently obtained the patent and the patent has wrongly been granted in their favour. The defendant further alleged that there is no novelty or invention in the patent and in fact it is just centuries old device popularly known as "KILTA" which was originally made of bamboo and has now been produced in plastic. It is also further alleged that the defendant had anticipated the device in fact in December, 2001. It designed a similar Kilta and sent drawings of the same for manufacturing of the design to Arries Moulding Company Ltd. Taiwan and thereafter the production of the Kilta was started and the same was introduced in the market.

5. The plaintiffs along with the suit filed an application for grant of interim relief seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling its version of the Kilta or committing any acts which may infringe in the patent granted to the plaintiffs. This application was contested by the defendant and the learned Single Judge by a well reasoned order dismissed the application for grant of interim relief. The learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the device patent of which was obtained by the plaintiffs is b