INDUSTRIAL GASES LTD Vs. KAMRUP INDUSTRIAL GASES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A patent monopoly is a privilege granted by the Patent Officer to the invention of any new contrivance in manufacture so that the inventor alone shall be entitled to it during a limited period to make articles according to his own invention. To be the subject-matter of a patent right, an article must be material and capable of being manufactured. An idea by itself cannot, however, be patented. The person supplying for the patent must be the true and first inventor of it and the Patents Act has been engrafted in the Statute Book to encourage inventions and also to protect inventions. The grant of patent entitles the patentee to all the rights and privileges in the invention and in the event of there being any infringement, the patentee can seek the assistance of Courts to protect his rights by an order of injunction together with a claim for damages. Be it noted that the patent documents carries with it a contemporary new technology and by reason of the protection as available under the Patent Act, there has been thus a steady statutory encouragement and development of modern technology be it in the field of software or other areas so as to meet the needs of a developing society and thereby giving rise to further scientific research and development for the benefit and enrichment of the present-day society. The Patent office, therefore, has an important role to play in promoting scientific and technical progress and consequent economic development of the country. The inventions shall have to be encouraged by the Law Courts and due protection ought to be had, as otherwise the purpose of such inventions would be totally frustrated and the inventor would turn out to be a man dejected. The fundamental aim in practising the patent system is to protect and encourage fair competition in the field of technology so as the transform inventions or creations into real productive forces as quickly as possible. Be it also noted that not only do people in the present contingent need to constantly improve their professional skills, but with the development of the situation even more qualified patent workers are required. All lawful rights and interests of patentees is the nucleons of the patent system and the country's market economy is dependent on a successful working of this particular patent system (see in this context WIPO Publication No. 435: January to March, 1995, Page 15).

(2.) Having discussed the basic feature of the Patent Law let us now deal with the issue as to the grant of interlocutory injunction. The equitable remedy by way of an injunction, whether mandatory or interlocutory in nature, is discretionary and is never granted as a matter of course. Lord Diplock's speech in the American Cyanamid case (American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd, 1975(1) All ER 504) lays down certain guidelines for the grant of interlocutory injunctions. The guidelines provide that the plaintiff must satisfy the Court that there is a serious issue to decided and that if the defendants were not restrained and the plaintiff wins the action, damages at Common Law would be inadequate compensation for the palintiffs loss. Once satisfied of these facts, the Court will then consider whether the balance of convenience ties in favour of granting the injunction or not, i.e. whether justice would be best subserved by an order of injunction. The great value of Cyanamid case lies in its treatment of interlocutory injunction as an aid to the concept of justice in any litigation. The demands of justice, when it comes to be question of whether or not to maintain the status quo until the trial, cannot be governed by rules-what should be borne in mind in addition to the tests phrased by Lord Diplock is his reminder that at this state the Court does not and cannot judge the merits of the parties' respective cases and that no decision can be taken in a state of uncertainty about the parties' rights. It would seem to follow from this that if there is any uncertainty, the court should be doubly reluctant to issue an injunction, the effect of which is to settle the parties' rights once for all. (In this context, see All ER Annual Review, 1984).

(3.) Similar view has also been expressed by the House of Lords in the case of Dimbleby & Sons Ltd. v. National Union of Journalists (1984) 1 All ER 751.