This is a suit for infringement of patents and designs and for rendition of accounts and various other reliefs.

2. I have heard Mr.M.Sundar, learned counsel for the plaintiff, Mr.V. Chandrakanthan, learned counsel for the first defendant, Mr.C.Manishankar, learned counsel for defendants 2 and 3 and Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned counsel for the fourth defendant.

3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

(a) that he founded a proprietary concern, originally known as Eagle Engineering Works and now known as Eagle Osteon Technologies, in the year 1968, in the field of Precision Engineering;

(b) that by tireless efforts and investment for over two decades, the plaintiff invented a wide range of Prosthesis for Limb Salvage surgery, for different parts of the human anatomy, which have been given the name "Custom Mega Prosthesis";

(c) that different types of Custom Mega Prosthesis for different parts of human anatomy were developed by the plaintiff to replace bone defects in the anatomical areas of the shoulder, hip, elbow, wrist, knee, ankle, pelvic region, etc.;

(d) that this Custom Mega Prosthesis (hereinafter referred to as "CMP") is made of titanium alloy or medical grade stainless steel;

(e) that the development and perfection of the technology was achieved by the plaintiff through lot of sacrifices and compromises, and was achieved through surgical Oncology and Precision Engineering expertise;

(f) that the plaintiff got Patents and Designs registered for about 15 kinds of CMPs invented and developed by him;

(g) that there are many unique unparalleled and unprecedented features for the CMPs invented by him, such as (1) the use of polymer components as journal bearings which reduce wear and tear by 90% and give smooth and free articulation of the joints; (2) the use of rotating hinge mechanism, which, by allowing a constrained radial freedom between the two bones which mate with the prosthesis, reduces to a large extent the stress in the bones and joints due to asymmetrical loading in the normal course of functioning; (3) the use of extending mechanism by which the prosthesis can be made to expand in-situ after surgery to compensate growth of symmetrical bone in the other limb, suitable for young patients and (4) the use of the pivotal hinge and thrust bearing pad mechanism which provide friction free articulation;

(h) that the plaintiff has been manufacturing, marketing and selling various CMPs through another proprietary concern by name Arc Bio-Mechanical Engineers;

(i) that Professor Mayilvahanan Natarajan, who is involved in developing and improvising the concept of limb salvage custom Prosthesis, is a Co-Patentee for the CMPs and the company Arc Bio-Mechanical Engineers has been supplying CMPs since the year 1992;

(j) that Professor Mayilvahanan Natarajan, co-owner of the Patent and Design in "Distal Femoral Prosthesis", has nothing to do with commercial aspects/dealings;

(k) that the total sales of knee joint CMPs in terms of quantity was 57 in 2001-02, 81 in 2002-03, 91 in 2003-04, 89 in 2004-05 and 60 in 2005-06;

(l) that the sales of knee joint CMP in terms of turn over was Rs.21,19,400/- in 2001-02, Rs.31,99,550/- in 2002-03, Rs.38,02,450/- in 2003-04, Rs.34,16,000/- in 2004-05 and Rs.29,43,100/- in 2005-06;

(m) that the plaintiff spent substantial amounts towards research and in reaching out the product;

(n) that the amount so spent was Rs.69,383/- in 2001-02, Rs.53,805/- in 2002-03, Rs.45,310/- in 2003-04, Rs.40,980/- in 2004-05 and Rs.46,046/- in 2005-06;

(o) that the amount spent by the plaintiff in advertisements was Rs.72,779/- in 2001-02, Rs.1,06,595/- in 2002-03, Rs.1,36,376/- in 2003-04, Rs.1,57,905/- in 2004-05 and Rs.33,658/- in 2005-06;

(p) that the plaintiff is the recipient of several prestigious and meritorious awards for his work in the field of CMP;

(q) that these awards include (i) Technology Day Award 2006, conferred by Technology Development Board, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India; (ii) Nati