ASIAN ELECTRONICS LTD Vs. JUMBO ELECTRIC COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff had filed this suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from infringement of plaintiff's patent No. 193488 in respect of "conversion kit to change fluorescent lighting units inductive operation to electronic operation". The plaintiff has also prayed for issue of an injunction against the defendant restraining defendant from manufacturing, selling, distributing conversion kit embodying the plaintiff's registered patent and from infringing plaintiff's copyright in industrial drawings in respect of lighting unit and conversion kit and sought an order for delivery up for destruction of all lighting units and conversion kits, dies, labels, printed materials such as brochures, etc. and to render accounts.

(2.) The plaintiff had moved an application for interim injunction. An ex parte interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining defendant from manufacturing, selling, distributing the lighting system or conversion kit embodying plaintiff's registered patent. The local commissioner was also appointed by the Court to prepare inventory of goods. Thereafter defendant moved an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the injunction.

(3.) A perusal of the plaint of the plaintiff would show that the plaintiff has claimed that it got a patent No. 193488 registered in respect of a conversion kit fitted with holders/pin for fluorescent lighting units with electronic blast circuit. In the body of the plaint, plaintiff had explained what its invention means and had also given the claim plaintiff lodged with the patent office. The plaintiff submitted that it also got its invention registered with US Patent office vide No. 6100638 and had made application with Europe, Korea and Canada. It is stated by the plaintiff that the defendant was manufacturing and selling the identical conversion kits for lighting units with electronic blast operation embodying claims of the plaintiff's patent and such a conversion unit was purchased by the plaintiff (manufactured by the defendant) from an electrical shop in Delhi. It is stated that this unit was a copy of plaintiff's patented product and embodied the patented product of the plaintiff. Plaintiff had not granted a license to the defendant for the use of the said patent and therefore manufacturing of lighting units and conversion kits by the defendant was unauthorized and illegal and amounted to infringement of plaintiff patent rights.