1979 (10) TMI 230 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the plaintiff's patent assignment.
2. Prima facie case for granting a temporary injunction.
3. Balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
4. Defendants' arguments against the injunction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Plaintiff's Patent Assignment
The plaintiff, M/s. National Research Development Corporation of India, filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing Patent No. 138571. The plaintiff alleged that it is the assignee of the patent, originally granted to CSIR and assigned to the plaintiff via an Assignment Deed dated 22nd May 1979. The defendants argued that the plaintiff is not an assignee as the name was not entered in the Register of Patents. However, the court noted that the deed was registered on 21st June 1979, making the plaintiff the assignee from the date of execution, i.e., 22nd May 1979, as per Section 68 of the Patents Act, 1970. Therefore, the plaintiff has locus standi to institute the suit.

2. Prima Facie Case for Granting a Temporary Injunction
The court examined whether there was a prima facie case for granting a temporary injunction. The plaintiff claimed that the patent is valid and has been infringed by the defendants, causing irreparable loss. The court noted that the patent had been worked and enjoyed without dispute for more than six years, which provides a strong presumption of its validity. The court also referenced Terrell on the Law of Patents, which states that a patent that has been worked for many years without dispute can be presumed valid for the purpose of granting a temporary injunction.

3. Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Loss
The court considered the balance of convenience and whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss. The plaintiff argued that the defendants' infringement would cause irreparable loss that cannot be adequately compensated. The court agreed, noting that if the defendants were not injuncted, it would set a precedent for others to violate the patent, causing significant harm to the plaintiff. The balance of convenience, therefore, favored granting the injunction to protect the plaintiff's exclusive rights under the patent.

4. Defendants' Arguments Against the Injunction
The defendants argued that the plaintiff is not the inventor or assignee of the patent and that the patent claims are vague and do not involve any inventive step. They also claimed to have developed their own technology and that the plaintiff could be compensated in terms of money. However, the court found these arguments unconvincing. The correspondence between the parties indicated that the defendants were aware of the patent and had even sought a license from the plaintiff. The court noted that the defendants did not file any objections to the patent with the Patent Office, further indicating their acknowledgment of the patent's validity.

Conclusion:
The court confirmed the ex parte injunction dated 13th June 1979, restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff's Patent No. 138571 until the decision of the suit. The plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction (I. A. No. 1915 of 1979) was allowed, and the defendants' application for vacation of the stay (I. A. No. 1953 of 1979) was dismissed. The defendants were ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings to the plaintiff, with a counsel fee of Rs. 300/-.