SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 2263

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
Saint-Gobain Glass France, Through its authorized signatory, S. Giriraj Kumar & Another - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Harsha Exito Engineering (P) Ltd., Chennai - Respondent
Civil Suit (Comm.Div) No. 409 of 2019
Decided On : 22-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Plaintiff:M/s. Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari, K. Muthu Selvam & Amrish Tiwari, Advocates. For the Defendant: No Appearance.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of patent infringement under the Patents Act and the calculation of damages based on the Plaintiff's losses.

Headnote:

Patents Act - Infringement - Section 104 - Saint Gobain Group v. Defendant - Patents Act, 1970, Section 104 r/w Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules, Order VII Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Sections 2(1)(c) and 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 - 45, 11A(7) - The court found that the Plaintiff is the proprietor of the Suit Patent, the Defendant infringed the Suit Patent, and awarded damages and costs to the Plaintiff.

Fact of the Case:

The Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant from infringing Indian Patent No.305596 and for consequential orders for delivery of the infringing products to the Plaintiff for destruction and for a decree of damages. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant infringed the patent by using an identical device, system, and method as claimed in the Suit Patent to complete a contract with TRIL.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Plaintiff is the proprietor of the Suit Patent, the Defendant infringed the Suit Patent, and awarded damages and costs to the Plaintiff.

Issues: The issues included whether the Plaintiff is the Proprietor of the Indian Patent, whether the Defendant has infringed the Indian Patent, whether the Defendant is liable to be permanently injuncted from infringing the Plaintiff's Patent, and whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages owing to infringing activities of the Defendant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 45 and 11A(7) of the Patents Act to determine the maintainability of the action for infringement. It also considered evidence of infringement and calculated damages based on the Plaintiff's losses.

Final Decision: The court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff, awarded damages, and directed the Defendant to pay costs to the Plaintiff.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Suit is filed under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970 r/w Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules and Order VII Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Sections 2(1)(c) and 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 praying to a decree of permanent injunction be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, its officers, Directors, Agents, Distributors and Customers restraining them from using, employing, manufacturing, assembling, selling, offering for sale, advertising including through their and third party websites, products, devices and systems that are used for installation of glass panels, so as to result in infringement of the suit Patent, i.e., Indian Patent No.305596, until the Defendant has procured appropriate licenses and permissions therefore from Plaintiff; (ii) an order for delivery up of infringing components/ elements, semi-manufactured products/parts, products, devices and systems manufactured using the patented technology, devices and systems including packaging, labels, brochures and other printed material for the purposes of destruction; and (iii) a decree for damages in respect of use, manufacture, sale, export, import or any other infringing activity in relation to products, that infringes the subject matter of suit Patent, i.e., Indian Patent No.305596 and a decree for the amount so found and ascertained by this Court may be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant and (iv) for the costs of the suit.)

1. The suit was filed for a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant from infringing Indian Patent No.305596 (the Suit Patent) and for consequential orders for delivery of the infringing products to the Plaintiff for the purposes of destruction and for a decree of damages for the amount so found and ascertained by the Court.

2. The Plaintiff stated the following. It is part of the Saint Gobain group of companies which is active in more than 67 countries, and designs, manufactures and distributes high performance building materials, which are used in the building and construction industry. It obtained the Suit Patent (Indian Patent Number 305596) for the system and method of installing glass panels, which is the underlying technology for the Saint Gobain Product – SGG PLANICLIP.

3. The Plaintiff further contended that the Defendant infringed the said suit patent when it entered into a contract with TRIL Info Park Ltd (TRIL), as a substitute for the Plaintiff, for supply and installation of glass panels. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant employed and used an identical device, system and method as claimed in the Suit Patent to complete the TRIL contract. The Plaintiff, on further inquiry, found that the Defendant filed an application for grant of patent for an alleged invention, which is not novel but based on the Suit Patent.

4. Upon service of summons, the Defendant entered appearance through counsel and filed the written statement. The Defendant denied all the averments made by the Plaintiff in its written statement. The Defendant contended that TRIL's contract specified the use of glass holding fixtures/clamps by trade name “PLANICLIP” or similar clamps that are readily available in the market. The Defendant admits that it procured clips of a different dimension but similar function from China on 05.04.2017 and carried out installation from 20.04.2017 to 20.06.2017. The Defendant also noted that the Plaintiff did not raise any objection during the completion of the project and contended that the legal notice dated 04.07.2017 is not valid since the Plaintiff's patent application had been abandoned by then.

5. By taking into account the pleadings and documents, the following issues were framed by this Court:

1.Whether the Plaintiff is the Proprietor of the Indian Patent bearing number IN 305596?

2.Whether the Defendant has infringed/ has been infringing the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top