Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This is a suit for infringement of patents and designs and for rendition of accounts and various other reliefs.

2. I have heard Mr.M.Sundar, learned counsel for the plaintiff, Mr.V. Chandrakanthan, learned counsel for the first defendant, Mr.C.Manishankar, learned counsel for defendants 2 and 3 and Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned counsel for the fourth defendant.

3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

(a) that he founded a proprietary concern, originally known as Eagle Engineering Works and now known as Eagle Osteon Technologies, in the year 1968, in the field of Precision Engineering;
(e) that the development and perfection of the technology was achieved by the plaintiff through lot of sacrifices and compromises, and was achieved through surgical Oncology and Precision Engineering expertise;
(f) that the plaintiff got Patents and Designs registered for about 15 kinds of CMPs invented and developed by him;
(g) that there are many unique unparalleled and unprecedented features for the CMPs invented by him, such as (1) the use of polymer components as journal bearings which reduce wear and tear by 90% and give smooth and free articulation of the joints; (2) the use of rotating hinge mechanism, which, by allowing a constrained radial freedom between the two bones which mate with the prosthesis, reduces to a large extent the stress in the bones and joints due to asymmetrical loading in the normal course of functioning; (3) the use of extending mechanism by which the prosthesis can be made to expand in-situ after surgery to compensate growth of symmetrical bone in the other limb, suitable for young patients and (4) the use of the pivotal hinge and thrust bearing pad mechanism which provide friction free articulation;

85. In the light of the defence taken by the defendants, it is contended by Mr.M. Sundar, learned counsel for the plaintiff that whenever an action for infringement is initiated by the registered holder of a patent, the onus of establishing that the patent was not a valid patent would shift to the defendant, who challenges the validity of the patent by taking recourse to Section 107(1) read with Section 64. In the case on hand, the claim of the plaintiff is based upon the certificates of registration issued by the Registrar of Patents. The plaintiff also went into the witness box and contended that he had been constantly developing, improvising and perfecting the technology relating to limb salvage devices by spending his time and money for over two decades. He has claimed in his deposition as PW1 that due to unrelenting and persistent research and experimentation in the field and by combining surgical oncology and precision engineering expertise, he was able to develop about 15 types of prosthesis. According to the plaintiff, the CMP developed by him has the following unique, unparalleled and unprecedented features :