B. BARUN MELSUNGEN AG Vs. MOHINDER PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS filed this suit for permanent injunction against defendants since defendants had brought out a product in the market as MEDIFLON SAFETY. It is alleged that this product of the defendants infringes the plaintiffs' Patent No. 210062. The claim of plaintiffs patent No. 210062, as given in the plaint and in the documents filed mainly concerns claim No. 21 of the patent application filed by plaintiffs on 18th August 1998 and granted on 17th September 2007. It is described as under:

(2.) IT is submitted by the plaintiffs that the above patent of the plaintiffs is in respect of IV catheter, a device through which intravenous fluids are administered. The invention made by plaintiffs addressed a problem that persisted in existing catheters. The problem being that immediately after withdrawal of needle from the patient's vein, the healthcare worker had to place the exposed needle tip at a nearby location and address the tasks required to be accomplished on withdrawal of the needle. At this juncture, the exposed needle tip used to create a danger of accidental needle prick, making the health care workers vulnerable to transmission of various dangerous blood -borne pathogens transmitting diseases including AIDS and Hepatitis (paragraph 9 of the plaint). Based on this invention, plaintiffs were marketing their products under the name Vesofix Safety. As per the plaintiffs, the core of plaintiffs' invention was that it provided a protective guard on the tip of the injection needle which while drawing out from its catheter engages with the needle tip by detaching and shielded it during removal, thus ensuring that the handler is never exposed to the needle tip.

(3.) THE defendants have distinguished between the products /patent of plaintiffs and their own products. On the basis of this distinction, it is submitted that the working of the two products was entirely different. There was no infringement of plaintiffs' patent and there was no overlapping between the two products. The concept, idea, the principle and the technology of the two products was entirely different. It is also submitted that the entire claim of plaintiffs regarding its patent was hollow and the patent of the plaintiffs was liable to cancelled under the provisions of Section 64(1) (e) and (f) of the Patents Act, 1970. Defendants also filed counter claim suit to this effect. The defendants informed the court that they had applied for registration of the design of their own safety IV catheter with Patent Office on 19th February 2007 and 29th March 2007 and the same were registered under numbers 208450 and 209167. It is submitted that the technology being used by the plaintiffs and the defendants was totally different. While the plaintiffs had a safety device riding on the needle which claps the needle tip on retraction, the defendants' product had a metal strip fixed in housing which blocks the passage of needle on retraction. The metal strip was having a separate seat and does not ride the needle in the manner as in the products of the plaintiffs.