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

1969 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 12

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Vimadalal, J.
Farbwerke Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft vormals Meister Lucius and Bruning a Corporation etc v. Unichem Laboratories
Suit for infringement of patent | Indian Patent No. 58716



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Blanco White
For the Respondents: Mr. Mistree

Patent infringement requires the plaintiff to prove unauthorized use of a patented process, while the validity of the patent must meet criteria of novelty, description, and utility.

Headnote:(A) Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 29 and 26 - Patent infringement claim pertaining to Patent No. 58716 for sulphonylureas - Plaintiff alleged infringement of patent claims by defendants manufacturing similar drug - Defendants claimed they used a different process under a licensed patent and argued the plaintiffs' patent was invalid. (Paras 1-3)

(B) Key legal principles include: The onus of proving patent infringement lies with the plaintiff (Para 7); An invention must be sufficiently described, novel, and useful (Paras 12-20); The specification should allow those skilled in the art to reproduce the invention without further invention (Para 14). (Paras 12-20)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs own Patent No. 58716 concerning sulphonylureas, alleging infringement by the defendants through the manufacture of Uni-Tolbid tablets utilizing the same active ingredient (Tolbutamide). The defendants maintain that their processes are lawful under a separate patent held by a government institute. (Paras 1-3)

Findings of Court:
The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that the defendants had infringed the patent claims. The plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated their patent's validity against the defendants' challenges on grounds of description, novelty, and utility. (Paras 20-21)

Issues: The key issues included whether the defendants infringed the patent and whether the patent itself was valid as per the defendants’ claims. (Paras 3, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held the plaintiffs' specification adequately described the invention and affirmed that the infringement claims were substantiated. The defendants failed to sufficiently establish their defenses regarding the patent's invalidity. (Paras 20-21)

Result: Injunction granted against the defendants and orders for the destruction of infringing products. (Para 21)

Table of Content
1. overview of patent infringement and parties involved. (Para 1)
2. defence arguments against patent validity and infringement. (Para 2)
3. issues framed for determination regarding infringement. (Para 3 , 4)
4. legal standards for delay and acquiescence in patent cases. (Para 5 , 6)
5. court's analysis of patent claims and their constructions. (Para 7 , 8)
6. expert testimony and technical glossary for decision. (Para 9 , 10)
7. determination of claims allegedly infringed. (Para 11)
8. analysis of patent validity challenges. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
9. precedent and implications regarding patent utility. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
10. final judgment granting relief to the plaintiffs. (Para 21)

1. This is a suit for infringement of patent under S.29 of the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911 , filed by the plaintiffs who are the legal owners and proprietors of Indian Patent No. 58716 in respect of the manufacture of new sulphonylureas, salts of those compounds and of anti - diabetic preparations containing such compounds. The application for the said patent was made by the plaintiffs on 23rd October 1956 and was accepted on 7th November 1957, but the same took effect from the 8th of May 1956 by reason of the provisions of S.78A of the Patents and Designs Act. One of the chemical compounds comprised in the said patent is Tolbutamide, and since 1957 the plaintiffs have been marketing the same as an anti - diabetic drug in India and all over the world under the trade mark "Rastinon." The suit was originally filed only against the present first defendants who, according to the Plaintiffs, have since May 1961 wrongfully and with full knowledge of the plaintiffs' said patent No. 58716 infringed the said patent by manufacturing, preparing and selling Uni - Tolbid tablets or Tolbutamide manufactured in accordance with and by the use of the invention disclosed in the plaintiffs' said patent "and claimed in Claims 1 and 11" thereof. The first defendants admit having manufactured or sold the said tablets under the name Uni - Tolbid or Tolbutamide but claim that the said tablets had been manufactured by the application of the processes mentioned in another patent, being patent No. 64323 held by the Haffkine Institute of Bombay which is owned by the present second defendant State, under a licence granted to them by the second defendants for the manufacture and sale thereof. The second defendants have, by an order dated 6th February 1967, been made party defendants to this suit on their own application at their own costs throughout, but it may be mentioned that no relief has been claimed against them in the present suit by way of amendment of the plaint after their joinder. It appears that the business of the first defendants has, since the filing of the present suit, been acquired and taken over as a going concern by the third defendants, being a company which was registered under the Companies Act on the 22nd of August 1962, and the third defendants have been manufacturing and selling Uni - Tolbid tablets or Tolbutamide ever since then as successors to the first defendants. The third defendants were, therefore, joined as party defendants to this suit by an order dated the 9th of January 1968, and by the amendments effected pursuant to the said order, the plaintiffs have claimed against the third defendants also the same substantive reliefs which they had claimed against the first defendants in the suit as originally filed. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs in the present suit against defendants Nos. 1 and 3 are, an injunction restraining them from infringing the plaintiffs' said patent No. 58716, an order for payment of a sum of Rs. 7,000/- as and by way of damages, or in the alternative, an order for an account of the profits made by defendants Nos. 1 and 3 from the sale of the infringing goods and for payment of the same to the plaintiffs, and for an order to deliver up to the plaintiffs for destruction of all articles i


































































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