Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAJESWARAN
K. Ramu
Versus
Adyar Ananda Bhavan, Chennai
O.A. No. 535 of 2006 and O.A. No. 536 of 2006 in C.S. No. 495 of 2006
Decided On : 05-01-2007
Patent Infringement - Process and Product Patent - Sections 2j, 2ja, 4B, 104-A, 108 of Patents Act, 1970 - The court granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff based on the statutory rights conferred by the Patents Act, 1970. The plaintiff had established a prima facie case for patent infringement, and the court found that the plaintiff's exclusive statutory rights under the Act entitled them to prevent third parties from infringing the patents. The court relied on legal provisions and precedents to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed for an ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing their product and process patents for making low glycemic sweets using fructose. The plaintiff had obtained patent rights for both process and product and sought to prevent the defendant from making or selling products made with the patented process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case based on the patent registration certificates issued for the process and product patents. The court held that the plaintiff's statutory rights under the Patents Act, 1970 entitled them to prevent third parties from infringing the patents.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to an interim injunction based on their patent rights and whether the defendant's actions constituted patent infringement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the plaintiff's prima facie case, their exclusive statutory rights under the Patents Act, 1970, and the provisions of Sections 2j, 2ja, 4B, 104-A, and 108 of the Act. The court also considered relevant legal precedents to support its findings.
Final Decision: The court granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, allowing their applications and rejecting the defendant's contentions. No costs were awarded.
O.A. No. 535 of 2006 has been filed by the plaintiff to grant an ad-interim injunction, restraining the respondent, its partners or proprietors as the case may be, their men, agents, servants, successors-in-business, legal representatives or any person claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the applicants product patent under No. 200285 by making, using, selling or offering for sale of sweets made with fructose/levulose or in any other manner violating the said registered patent whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit.
2. O.A. No. 536 of 2006 has been filed by the plaintiff to grant an ad-interim injunction, restraining the respondent, its partners or proprietors as the case may be, their men, agents, servants, successors-in-business, legal representatives or any person claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the applicants process patent under No. 193899 by making any product, using, selling, offering for sale, products made with the patented process or otherwise dealing with the patented process in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit.
3. The plaintiff is the applicant.
4. Thebrief facts leading to the above applications are as under:
Plaintiff is carrying on business in the name and style of Sundar Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Sundar Dietetics Pvt. Ltd., and Sundar Diabetics Dezire. The plaintiff, along with his daughter Lavanya, found that fructose/ levulose which is a sweetener that does not have the injurious effect of sugar produced from sugarcane, can be used for the purpose of making traditional Indian sweets. After much efforts, the plaintiff invented a process by which fructose either singly or in combination can be used for manufacturing Indian sweets. The process involves fructose being prepared in a particular manner so as to prevent fructose from browning due to maillard reaction and caramelization when exposed to high temperature. The plaintiff, along with his daughter, applied for a patent on 13.2.2003 for the process for preparation for low glycemic sweets. After filing the process patent application, they further invented improved process to extend the said improved process for the preparation of traditional Indian sweets, where browning of sweets does not occur. Then the plaintiff and his daughter filed an application for product patent on 28.7.2004. After examining the application for process patent and product patent, Registration Certificate was issued for both process patent and product patent on 5.12.2005 under No. 193899 and on 1.5.2006 under No. 200285 respectively.
5. The plaintiff has been selling Indian sweets made by fructose since 6.7.2005 and their sweet shop was inaugurated at T.Nagar, Chennai. The plaintiffs process patent is renewed time and again and would be valid for a period of 20 years’ from 13.2.2003 up to 12.2.2023 and the product patent is also renewed and it would also be valid for a period of 20 years’ from 28.7.2004 i.e., up to 27.7.2024. Thus the plaintiff is entitled to prevent any 3rd party from making use of plaintiffs inventive process resulting in the plaintiffs products.
6. While so, the plaintiff was shocked and surprised to know that the defendant is violating the registered patent rights and he is selling sweets containing fructose in all his sweet shops. The products of the defendant are identical to the product of the plaintiff and therefore the defendant ought to be using the same process which is patented by the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff filed the above suit for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiffs process patent and product patent by making or selling products made with the patented process and also from making or selling sweets made with fructose, by violating the registered product patent. Plaintiff also prayed for the destruction of all the materials and implements used by the defendant for creation of the infringing goods and also for damages amount
AI
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
