ACME TELE POWER LIMITED Vs. SINTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Special Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 30.06.2008 passed by Honble Single Judge in Original Suit No. 02 of 2008 by which application of the plaintiff/appellant for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant instituted Civil Suit No. 02 of 2008 for permanent injunction in the Court of District Judge, Rudrapur under section 104 of Patents Act, 1970 for restraining the defendants/respondents from infringing the property right of the appellant into patents. According to the case of the plaintiff the plaintiff/appellant manufacturers products known as "Green Shelter" and "Compact Power Interface Unit" at its factory within the territory of State of Uttarakhand. These two products are purchased by and used in Telecom industry for efficient management of the temperature for telecom equipment at telecom towers. Defendant/respondent no. 1 is a company running business of manufacturing and supplying Sintex BTS Shelters (using therein Integrated Power Unit) and defendant/respondent no. 2 is a partnership firm manufacturing and selling integrated power unit, allegedly by infringing the plaintiff/appellants intellectual property rights. the plaintiff/appellant is committed to constant innovation and has spent huge capital and labour in inventing its products. The two products of the plaintiff/appellant namely Green Shelters and Compact Power Interface Units were the result of extensive research and developments, as such, the application was moved by the plaintiff/appellant for getting registered the patent. Consequently, the authority concerned granted registration of patent No. 197086 on 11.08.2006, for power interface Unit and No. 197108 on 08.09.2006, for Cuboidal shaped green shelter. By virtue of ownership of above patents, the plaintiff/appellant has right to prevent all other persons from making, using, selling offering to sell or importing two products. It is alleged that the defendants/respondents were infringing the valuable intellectual property rights of the plaintiff/appellant by manufacturing, using copy right works of plaintiff/appellant, and selling the same in the market. The plaintiff appellant also moved an application for interim injunction.

(3.) THE defendants/respondents filed their separate written statements and counter claims. In the written statement of defendant/respondent no. 1, territorial jurisdiction of the court in Uttarakhand is challenged with the allegation that no part of cause of action has arisen within the territory of Udham Singh Nagar (Uttarakhand). It is also stated in the written statement of defendant/respondent no. 2 that suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action. It is further pleaded that, the suit has been filed after the plaintiff/appellant failed to get relief in suit no. 598 of 2005 instituted before Delhi High Court and withdrew it. It is further stated by defendant/respondent no. 1 that he is manufacturing Base Trans. Station Shelter (for short BTS Shelter) on the basis of the requirements of the specification demanded by the customers. It is specially denied that patent products namely 'Cuboidal Shaped Green Shelter (in short Green Shelter) and 'Compact Power Interface Unit (in short PIU) are inventions of plaintiff/appellant. It is further stated that products with different names are used in telecommunication Industry for a long time. Nine distinguishing features between the products by plaintiff/appellant and the one by defendant/respondent no. 1 are enumerated in para 9 of the written statement. Defendant/respondent no. 1 pleaded that the plaintiff/appellants patented products "Green Shelter" is nothing more than workshop modification and the patent is liable to be revoked. Objections filed under Section 2 of Patent Act, 1970, by defendant/respondent no. 1 against patent No. 197108 and 197086, are pending for decision of the authorities concerned. Denying the plaintiff/appellants right is infringed it is also pleaded by defendant/respondent no. 1 that defendant/respondent no. 1 would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff/appellant while the plaintiff/appellant can be compensated in terms of money.