Introduction

• This case deals with the infringement of the patent right under Section 2(j) and 2(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.
• In this case where the question raised that the device developed as a result of traditional knowledge and aggregation/duplication of known products will be covered under the Patents Act, 1970.

Facts

• The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for permanent injunction as the defendants infringing his patent right.
• The patent device used for manually hauling agriculture products was an improvement over a local product called Kilta.
  • Kilta is the product which is used for carrying produce including agricultural produce.
• As per the plaintiffs, they visualized the invention in 1999, progressively worked on it, and formally sought a patent in May 2000. Although the patent was officially awarded in their favor in July 2005, its effective date traces back to the initial application date, namely in May 2002.
• The fundamental design of the traditional Kilta and the 'devices' created by both the plaintiffs and the defendant are practically identical.
• A visual examination of the three items immediately reveals that the products manufactured by the plaintiffs and the defendant closely resemble the traditional Kilta.
• The only distinction lies in the materials used is that the Kilta is crafted from bamboo, the version produced by the plaintiffs is constructed from polypropylene copolymer (PP).

Issues Involved

• Whether there exists a legal and a valid Patent of a 'Kilta' with the plaintiffs?
• Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of a decree for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from infringing his patent in any manner whatsoever?

Observations

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that “Mere grant of patent in favor of the plaintiffs by itself does not mean that the plaintiffs are entitled to any injunction. This is a factor that may be taken into consideration and would be a relevant factor, but the grant of the patent would not ipso facto entitle the plaintiffs to grant an injunction without taking into consideration other relevant factors”.
• The court also expressed its view that simply using polymeric material instead of bamboo does not constitute an inventive step or introduce novelty to the device.
  • Moreover, the court stated that the transformation of the traditional Kilta, crafted from natural materials to one made from synthetic materials does not represent a novel manufacturing process.
• Additionally, the court observed that the criteria for an 'inventive step' involve technical advancements or enhanced economic significance in an existing product.
  • It clarifies that for an inventive step to be recognized, there must be progress beyond existing knowledge, improvement in economic significance, or the development of an already existing device in a manner not obvious to those skilled in the relevant field.

Conclusion

• The Court held that the plaintiff lacked a prima facie case and, consequently, is not eligible for the interim injunction relief.
• Hence, the HC dismissed the suit of plaintiff.

Notes

The Patents Act, 1970-

Section 2(j) "Invention" means a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application;

Section 2(ja) "Inventive step" means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art.