Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7.8 The aforesaid and other information which would be required for the purpose of developing the equipment of plaintiff No.1 was never revealed to me, and in fact was not even required to be revealed to me as I was not involved with the same in any manner as I was not engaged in the development of any equipment for the plaintiffs, and in fact merely got the equipment fabricated on the basis of the drawings supplied by the plaintiffs to me. In other words, I was involved in using my expertise to formulate marketing strategies in India using my contacts and knowledge of the sourcing of materials and components, and having fabrication work caried out as per the drawings supplied to me. I say that the said drawings were used only for the purpose of manufacturing the plaintiffs equipment (which is very different in all relevant parameters from the equipment now manufactured by the defendant No.1) and were retruned to the plaintiffs at the time of my leaving the plaintiff No.2 company. I have not directly or indirectly used or relied upon any of the said drawings given to me by the plaintiff, for manufacturing the equipment of the defendant No.1, and the equipment of the defendant No.1 is developed from ground up as stated in details hereinafter. Further, as also stated hereafter, I deny that the said drawings depict any original work of the plaintiff No.1. As stated herein, there are several manufacturers in the market who manufacture similar PTS to that of the plaintiffs, using similar or identical components. Such PTS system are widely available in the market, and operate on the same principle and follow the same general design. They are also usually made using materials available in the market, which are manufactured to internationally standard specifications. Each of these have been developed and refined by the manufacturers to arrive at the final product, as has been done by the manufacturers to arrive at final product, as has been done by the defendant No.1. The mere fact that the plaintiff has made drawings of their system, which is similar to that of other manufacturers in the market, and also made from components manufactured to internationally standard specifications and freely available in the market, does not mean that the other manufacturers are precluded from manufacturing their systems which are similar in shape, design and operation to that of the plaintiffs, on the basis that such manufacturers will be in breach of the plaintiff No.1 s alleged Copyright. As stated above, the basic system design of PTS equipment, i.e. vertical pipe with flange at top and bottom, filter at top covered by a cap for suction and pressure, and in inlet along the height of the pipe, and four valves operated by actuators, is well known and established int he market. Further the equipment of the defendant No.1 is independently designed, and substantially different from that of the plaintiffs as stated hereafter. I have dealt with each of the so called confidential information as alleged by the plaintiffs in paragraph 7 of the plaint while dealing with the said photograph hereinafter, and I repeat what is stated therein to establish the falsity of the plaintiffs contention that the so called confidential information was at all confidential and / or was supplied to me.
35. Thus, it is his case that the basic design of PTS equipment is well known and established in the market.

There is nothing in the manufacture of the same which is unique to the plaintiffs. Therefore, there is no question of any confidential information much less drawings and designs being supplied and, therefore, misused. He submits that other manufacturers apart from plaintiffs are using identical or substantially similar designs because the basic design is identical. He has relied upon catalogues of two other companies. Thus in para 8.4, he has asserted that the principles on which Powder Handling Equipment works are well known both scientifically and in the trade, and have been in existence for a long time and used by several manufacturers. The basic designs being the same, different manufacturers have their own inputs to optimize the efficiency and functionality of the equipment according to each manufactures control system. The entire system of defendant No.1 has been researched and developed and manufactured without using or referring to or copying the drawings of the plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever. In para 9.3 onwards the defendant No.2 has given the basic description of the equipment and process involved in Powder Transfer System. He has gone ahead and pointed out as to how the Powder Transfer System is made. The PTS body is of simple pipe structure made by local fabricators, by welding together different components such as pipe, flanges etc. each of such component is manufactured as per internationally standard specifications and is sourced from the Market. The only part of the PTS body which is not made out of parts of internationally standard specifications, is the cap. The PTS bodies of most manufacturers are essentially similar and work on the same lines. The essential differences are pointed out in para 9.6. In para 9.8, the 2nd defendant states that:-

40. In the rejoinder affidavit of the plaintiffs, apart from reiterating the plaint allegations, it is stated that 2nd defendant is under an obligation to maintain secrecy of the confidential information. In fact, confidential information was given or else the defendant No.2 would not have dealt with the contents of the Annexures to the plaint in details. If he was not copying the designs or manufacturing identical products, then, there was no need for him to explain the entire manufacturing process and in such great details. In any event, the confidential information is not about the basic principles and basic designs. The confidential information is known to the 2nd defendant or else the calculations arrived at by him about all PTS bodies produced by defendant No.1 would not have matched with that of the plaintiffs. This itself shows that the 2nd defendant had access to all researched information which is used to make finished products when he was in the employment of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also relied upon the report of a expert to demonstrate that the design, specification and capacity of equipment manufactured by plaintiff and defendant No.1 are one and the same and not substantially different. The alleged differences are mere cosmetic changes. The exhibits to the plaint would show that the alleged differences are due to the Transfer Capacity requirement of the customer. Thus, it is clear that identical system is used by the defendant and is based on confidential information. It is denied that 2nd defendant returned the drawings / designs of double entry PTS. It is also denied that no confidential information was supplied. Thereafter, there is a affidavit filed in the sur-rejoinder and both sides filed their further affidavits.

44. Mr. Dwarkadas has pointed out that if the 2nd defendant was not manufacturing identical product with similar technology and providing it to majority of the clients of the plaintiffs, then, it was not necessary for him to file such a detailed ig affidavit and point out the alleged differences between machines. This clearly means that the 2nd defendant accepts that the product is identical so also the technology. Mr. Dwarkadas has invited my attention to the affidavit in rejoinder which has been filed by the plaintiffs and more particularly para 26 at page 14 of the plaint. He submits that it is not true that the basic designs are same. In any event, even the inputs to optimize efficiency and functionality of equipment which are the result of the plaintiffs trial system, research and development is the confidential information which was given to the defendant No.2 while in the plaintiffs service. In these circumstances, it is untrue and false to suggest that the entire system of defendant No.1 has been researched, developed and manufactured by the 2nd defendant without using or referring to or copying the drawings of the plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever. It is only on the dimensions or details provided as confidential information and the drawings that the 2nd defendants product is based.