SURENDRA LAL MAHENDRA Vs. JAIN GLAZERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts germane to the disposal of this application underorder 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with s. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for ad interim injunction concisely are that the plaintiff has instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their ser- vants, or agents etc. from infringing in any manner, patent No. 143964 dated 21st July, 1976 entitled 'Laminating Apparatus' of which he claims to be proprietor and patentee, by manufacture, sale or offering for sale or using any apparatus for producing a laminate according to the said patent and for rendition of accounts. It is averred that the invention known as 'Laminating Apparatus' relates to an apparatus for producing a laminate by wet process as distinguished from dry process; plaintiff being already grantee of patent No. 142811 dated 14th November, 1974 and patent No. 143168 of 1st of October, 1975 which are also in respect of an invention for laminating apparatus but by dry process. He asserts that an object of this invention i.e. patent in question, is to propose a modified construction of a laminating machine using the wet process and another object of thereof is to propose a laminating machine using the wet process and which is efficient.

(2.) . Claim No. 1 of this patent is reproduced below for ready reference:

(3.) . "The suit as well as this petition is resisted by the defendants/ respondents who deny the claim of the plaintiff to be proprietor of the patent in question. They assert that the said patent was already known, published and used in India as well as throughout the world, prior to the date of the application in this case. Even the literature, illustrations and such-like laminating machines were available in India before the priority date. In particular they have averred that MORAME MAXIBOND laminating machines which were,being manufactured by M/s. MORANE PLASTIC CO. LTD, ENGLAND and which have exactly the same system of working as that claimed by the plaintiff in his claim were being imported into India much before the priority date of the plaintiff. It is contended that a comparison of patent specifications No. 1181161 of M/s. Morane Plastic Co. Ltd. and that of the plaintiff's No. 143964 . will clearly reveal that the plaintiff is guilty of purloining the laminating system from Morane Maxibond Machine and specification and has falsely claimed to be an inventor of the said appalatus. Further the plaintiff has not disclosed in the patent specification as to what was the laminating apparatus already available and what was the modification and distinct improvement made and utility imparted by the plaintiff to the existing apparatus/device when he applied for registration of the patent. According to them the complete specification furnished by the plaintiff is vogue, unintelligible and jugglery of words. Thus the specification does not state what is the modified construction embodied in the patented apparatus. In other words wet laminating apparatus being already known and used in India previous to priority date there was no inventive step and there was no novelty or utility in the patent and the claim made by the plaintiff was false to his knowledge. The defendants have also lodged a counter claim for revocation of the patent in question on the ground that it is invalid and has been wrongly registered for the reasons mentioned above and as such it is hit by Section 64 of the Act. Lastly the defendants assert that their machine is an indigenous apparatus and does not constitute infringement of the plaintiff's patent, inasmuch as the actuating components of their machine are entirely different from the plaintiff's machine and have been designed by Subhash Chander defendant No. 3 himself from the well known existing machines available in India before the priority date.