Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

THE PLAINTIFF'S REPLY

15. Advocate Sri.V.K. Issac, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff made the following submissions before me in support of his request for a decree in terms of the plaint:-

One C.P. Philipose examined in this case as P.W.2 was the inventor of the patented device claimed to be one for smoke drying of agricultural products. P.W.2 was aged 64 when examined before this Court in the year 2007. He is a graduate in electrical engineering having post graduate qualification in Industrial Electronics Engineering. After an extensive research which included a discussion with one Rajan Paul who was his friend, neighbour and college-mate, P.W.2 stumbled upon the novel idea of a steel fabricated, portable, alimirah type, user friendly AND fuel efficient device with drying chambers. Wet rubber sheets could be loaded into the drier and after drying the dried sheets could be unloaded without the person entering the drier. P.W2's friend Rajan Paul who was a postgraduate in Mechanical Engineering and who was working as a Design Engineer in TATA Engineering and Locomotives, had become a quadriplegic after an accident. It was after consulting with the said Rajan Paul also that P.W.2 came out with the proto-type of the new and improved design. P.W.2 is one of the promoters of the plaintiff company. The company was formed for the commercial production of the new generation driers in the year 1987. The plaintiff company started manufacturing modern rubber sheet driers from 1987 onwards and was marketing the same under the series RRSD (ribbed rubber sheet drier) based on specifications given by P.W.2. The plaintiff company wanted its driers to be tested by the Rubber Board. P.W.4 (K.T. Mani) who was the Specification Officer in the Quality Control Division of the Rubber Board made an evaluation of the drier spreading over a period of 1 = years . Ext.X1 is the file of the Rubber Board. Exts. X1 (a), X1 (b), X1(c) and X1 (d) are the evaluation reports submitted by P.W.4. The plaintiff company contacted the Kerala Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organization Limited (KITCO for short) established by the Industrial Development Bank of India in association with the Government of Kerala . P.W.3 who was the Joint General Manager of "KITCO" has deposed that Ext.A6 is the technical report regarding the plaintiff's driers prepared by one M.S. Unnikrishnan a Senior Consultant of KITCO. The conventional smoke houses were of masonry constructions with an oven underneath . Those smoke houses were having several defects. The plaintiffs driers have no masonry structure. The patented device is an almirah type structure made of steel . The furnace is below the chamber. The advantage is that the person feeding the rubber sheets into the drier need not enter the chamber for loading or unloading of rubber sheets. Another advantage is that smoke is passing through a controlled path. So, uniform heat is ensured. Moreover, the patented driers require far less fuel than the conventional smoke houses. The patented invention is economical as well as portable . The company, therefore, applied for patent in Form No. 1 A of the II Schedule of the Patents Rules, 1972 on 31-5-1990. Ext.A17 is the complete specification containing the technical drawings and the claims . Ext.A17 complete specification was accepted by the Controller of Patents under Sec. 22 of the Act. The acceptance of the complete specification was published in the Gazette of India as provided under Sec. 23 of the Act. The patent was sealed and granted on 21-2-1997 under Sec. 43 of the Act. Since by virtue of Sec. 45 of the Act the patent was to be dated as of the date on which the complete specification was filed , Ext.A10 patent was dated 31- 5-1990 which was the date on which the application for patent along with the complete specification was filed . The term of the patent was 14 years from the date of patent by virtue of Sec. 53 of the Act. Thus the patent was effective till 31-5-2004. In the year 1997 the plaintiff company came to know that the defendants are manufacturing and selling driers by imitating the essential features of the plaintiff's patented product in gross violation of the monopoly rights conferred on the patentee by Section 48 (2) of the Act. Thereupon the plaintiff issued Ext.A11 lawyer notice calling upon the defendants to stop selling the driers by infringing the plaintiff's patent and to pay damages. On receipt of Ext.A11 notice the defendants had any of the following two options.