JUDGMENT

(Appeal filed under Clause XV of the Madras High Court Letters Patent read with Sec.13 of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against the decreetal order dated 24.01.2020 made in O.A. No. 639 of 2019 in C.S. (Comm.Div) No. 400 of 2019 on the file of this Court.)

R. Subbiah, J.

1. The first respondent herein, as plaintiff, has filed the suit in C.S. (Comm.Div) No. 400 of 2019 for granting a Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their men, agents, associates, representatives, assigns, subsidiaries, Joint-venture entities, collaborators or any one claiming through them from infringing the plaintiff’s patent bearing No.262461, including aiding and/or facilitating infringement in any manner, form or means whatsoever and for costs.

2. As Per the plaint averments, the plaintiff claims to have invented several products and obtained patents for the same in India, United States of America, Australia and Singapore. According to the plaintiff, on 29.03.2006, he submitted an application for patent in Application No. 569/CHE/2006 titled “Electrically Operated Vehicle having a wind operated battery charging system.” The Plaintiff also obtained patent for the said product vide No. 262461 issued by the competent authority on 22.08.2014. It is also contended that the plaintiff has periodically renewed and validated his patent before the Registrar of Patents, Government of India. That apart, the plaintiff also obtained design registration in respect of “A battery housing with connector for easy replacement and recharge of batteries” bearing Patent No. 217786 which was registered on 03.09.2009. It is his contention that he is also periodically renewing and validating the same before the Registrar of Designs, Patent Office, Government of India. It is the contention of the plaintiff that his invention envisages that service stations, petrol stations and other service providers would hold stocks of batteries within the said drawer member for easy replacement/charge of vehicle batteries. Thus, a vehicle needing a battery change or battery recharge would drop into a service station to get the needful done. While so, during January 2019, the plaintiff came to know that the second defendant, along with fifth defendant had advertised for sale mass electric mobility solutions through “quick interchange station” and “smart battery” for automobiles, which according to the plaintiff contains the essential features of the plaintiff's patent No.262461. The Plaintiff also came to know that the defendants 1, 2 and 5 have signed commercial deals and entered into partnership alliance among themselves to provide “quick interchange station” and “smart battery” solutions for mass electric mobility. Therefore, the plaintiff, by notice dated 09.01.2019, called upon the defendants to immediately cease and desist from infringing his patent bearing No.262461 in any manner including aiding and facilitating infringement and use the said patent without authroisation, consent, approval or licence from the plaintiff. The fifth defendant sent a reply dated 15.01.2019 stating that their product was not an electrically operated vehicle and sought time to respond effectively. The first defendant sent a reply on 21.03.2019 stating that they are in the field of designing and developing battery swap and charge stations and related equipment/accessories and thus, the first defendant denied the contents contained in notice dated 09.01.2019. According to the plaintiff, his inventions are tested and available through his authorized and permitted entity M/s. Blacksmith Electric Inventions Private Limited, Chennai, a company registered under the Companies Act, where the plaintiff is a Director (Technical). It is further stated that the plaintiff has also approached various companies to commercially make the patented invention available through them. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has exclusive statutory right to prevent the defendants fro