Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

i) Make an application to the patentee under Section 105 (1) (a) of the Act, or
ii) file a suit under Section 106 (1) of the Act.

The defendants did not resort to any of the above courses. Instead, the first defendant sent Ext.A12 reply denying the allegation in Ext.A11. Besides denying the infringement alleged the first defendant took the stand that others were also violating the plaintiff's patent. It has been specifically alleged in paragraph 8 of the plaint that the sales turn over of the plaintiff was reduced by Rs. 4 and odd lakhs in the year 1997-98 and by 16,76,456/- in the year 1998-1999 . If the defendants have copied the essential features of the plaintiff's machine it would be a colourable imitation and the absence of certain non-essential intigers in the offending machine will not save the defendants from the charge of infringement. If infringement is proved, then the plaintiff is entitled to damages. (See AIR 1978 Delhi 1). The counter-claim by the defendants is not liable to be decreed . The defence contention that the plaintiff's invention lacks novelty cannot be sustained at all. The answer to question Nos. 29 to 35 in the cross-examination of the first defendant examined as DW1 will clearly show that both the driers are similar. His further statement that both the driers do not look alike is belied by the advertisements. At page 17 of hi deposition DW1 has admitted that the plaintiff has obtained patent for the patentable features and that he did not raise objections to the grant of patent by the Controller of Patents. Merely because the defendants have also got approval of their driers by the Rubber Board it does not follow that their driers are not infringing copies. The defence contention that their driers are not identical since there are no fire splitters, partition plates and insulation for burners cannot be upheld. Fire- splitter is an additional precaution against combustion. Partition plates are also safety measures and Ext.B1 sketch submitted by the defendant shows the existence of flow path in the driers of the defendants for the control of the smoke. Providing insulation for the burners is also a protective measure and has nothing to do with the basic design of the machine. The Rubber Board which conducted experiments and tests on the driers of the plaintiff was convinced that the plaintiffs driers were novel . Since DW1 has admitted at page 6 of his deposition that his drier has almost all the salient features of the plaintiff's driers it was not necessary for the plaintiff to produce both the machines or take out a commission. There is no evidence to the effect that Dhoomitha and other driers were in use in the market when the plaintiff applied for patent in the year 1990. Hence, failure by the plaintiff to take action against them cannot be taken advantage of by the defendants who are infringers. Drying of agricultural produce may be part of agriculture. But, it cannot be said that the patented device is part of agricultural produce. Features of the plaintiff's patent are stated in the plaint. This Court permitted the plaintiff to adduce evidence without asking the plaintiff to furnish further particulars under Order VI Rule 4 C.P.C. The cause of action in the suit arose in April 1997. Hence, compensation is awardable from that date till 31-5-2000 when the plaintiff paid renewal fee on 31-5-1999 a per Ext.A19 for the period from 31-5-1999 to 31-5-2000.