Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. It   is   also   submitted   by   the   defendants   that  they   are   not   engaged   in   providing   inclusion  scanning   service   by   using   duplicate   machines  incorporating   the   Suit   Patent.   It   is   claimed  by   the   defendants   that   defendant   no.3   in  collaboration   of   other   defendants   have  developed a distinct technology that does not  fall   within   the   scope   of   claims   of   the   Suit  Patent   constituting   any   infringement.   It   is  also   denied   by   the   defendants   that   the  defendants,   in   their   business   of   providing  inclusion   scanning   services   to   third   party  make   use   of   the   Suit   Patent   pertaining   to  determination of inclusions in a gemstone. It  is   also   denied   that   the   defendants   are  manufacturing   or   have   manufactured   or   have  provided services in relation to duplicate and  infringing   machines   for   commercial   purposes.  It   is  averred  by   the   defendants   that   in   fact  the   defendants   have   their   own   technology   and  machine   which   is   independently   developed  ensuring   that   it   does   not   infringe   the   Suit  Patent   whatsoever.  It   is   contended   that   the  sole   basis   or  rather   novelty   on   the   basis  of  which the Suit Patent was granted in India is  for a device or system operative to reduce or  eliminate   presence   of   gas   bubbles   from   the  immersion   medium   and   not   for   any   scanning  machine   or   system   for   scanning   machines   per  se.  It   is   alleged   by  the  defendants   that  the  plaintiffs   have   deliberately   hidden   this   core  heart   of   the   invention   and   have   repeatedly  indicated   falsely   to   the   Court   that   the   very  use   of   Selenium   is   their   patent,   which   is  grossly   incorrect,   false   and   mentioned   purely  to   mislead   the   Court.   The   defendants   have  contended that numerous prior arts exist prior  to   the   Suit   Patent   which   were   cited   in   the  proceedings   of   the   Suit   Patent,   particularly,  in   the   First   Examination   Report   issued   by  Indian   Patent   Office,   as   a   result   of   which,  the   plaintiffs,   by   their   own   admission,  limited   their   novelty   in   "a   device   or   system  operative   to   reduce   or   eliminate   presence   of  gas   bubbles   from   immersion   medium".   Relying  upon   the   First   Examination   Report   of   the  Indian   Patent   Office,   it   is   contended   by   the  defendants   that   the   Suit   Patent   provides   for  limited rights to the plaintiffs and by their  own admission are certainly estopped in equity  to   claim   otherwise   which   even   law   does   not  grant   to   them,   which   indeed   is  misrepresentation   and   warrants   strict   action  against   the   plaintiffs.   It   is   claimed   by   the  defendants that the device or machine that is  being   developed   and   used   by   the   defendants  does   not   comprise   of   any   device   or   system  operative   to   reduce   or   eliminate   presence   of  gas   bubbles   from   the   immersion   medium.   The  defendants   have   submitted   that   the   use   of  Selenium   cannot,   in   any   manner,   whatsoever  under   the   fair   principles   of   claim  construction,   be   construed   to   be   the  substance/pith   and   marrow   of   the   present  invention and the Suit Patent relates to only  on   use   of   a   device   to   prevent   bubble  formation.  The   defendants   have   contended  that  as   the   defendants'   inclusion   detection   device  does not have vacuum/bubble prevention device,  there is no infringement of Suit Patent by the  defendants'   device   in   any   manner.  It   is  contended by the defendants that the device to  prevent   bubble   formation   enabled   the  plaintiffs to get the patent as that was last  claim amendment that they did in order to get  the   allowance.   It   is   also   contended   by   the  defendants that non­use of such a device that  prevents   bubble   formation   can   be   clearly  evidenced   from   the   local   commission   report  that indicated that no vacuum pump was present  in the devices inspected during the visit. 

45. Further,   more   particularly,   relying   upon  Paragraph 13 of the final report of the Court  Commissioner,   it   was   contended   that   the  machines   of   defendant   no.1   provide   for  introduction   of   Helium   gas   in   the   container  before the same is heated and the pressure of  the gas is controlled by various valves found  in the machine. It was further contended that  the   structure   of   the   machines   of   the  defendants   was   also   found   to   be   similar.  Further,   relying   upon   the   Commissioner's  report as well as CD which is submitted by the  Court   Commissioner   along   with   the   report,   it  was   contended   that   the   machines   used   by   the  defendants   are   comparable   to   the   machines  operated   by   plaintiff   no.1.   It   was   further  contended that even the Court Commissioner has  noted that defendant no.1 used Selenium as the  medium   in   which   the   rough   diamonds   are  submerged   quickly   at   first   and   then   at   a  slower   pace   after   the   bell   valve   gets  compressed   and   thereafter,   even   at   a   slower  pace   prior   to   actual   process   of   scanning.   It  was   contended   that   only   the   contention   which  is   raised   by   the   defendants   is   that   they   do  not   have   bubble   prevention   technology/device  and   it   is  further  the  case   of  the  defendants  that there is no vacuum pump in the device of  the defendants. It was further contended that  the   defendants   have   admittedly   stated   in   the  video   recording   that   there   is   only   one  distinguishing   factor   between   their   machines  from   those   of   the   plaintiffs   which   is   the  perceived   absence   of   the   bubble   prevention  device/technology   in   terms   of   a   vacuum   pump.  It   was   further   contended   that   bubble  prevention mechanism which is part of the Suit  Patent   is   not   confined   to   removal   of   bubble  through   vacuum   pump   alone.   Explaining   the  steps, it was contended as under:­   

52. Per   contra,   Mr.   Saurabh   N.   Soparkar,   learned  Senior   Advocate   for   defendant   no.1,   after  enumerating   the   main   points   which   have   been  argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, contended  that what is now argued orally is not forming  part of the contentions in the plaint and the  same goes to the root of the matter. Referring  to   main   claims   which   are   accepted   by   the  Controller of Patent being claims no.1 and 18,  it was contended that these claims say, inter­ alia,   about   the   device   to   remove   bubbles.   It  was contended that the Court Commissioner came  for   inspection   and   that   device   was   not   there  and   thus,   principal   claim   is   of   removal   of  bubble by vacuum pump. Mr. Soparkar also took  this Court through the contents of the plaint  and   contended   that   the   whole   case   of   the  plaintiffs is different and what is argued is  not the case in the pleadings at all. It was  contended that there is not even a suggestion  or an indication about the vacuum pump as well  as removal of bubble and the same is not even  whispered   at   all.   It   was   contended   that   in  such circumstances, how can oral arguments be  made which is not found in the plaint. It was  contended that the ground on which the Suit is  filed is use of Selenium and it is stated that  the   same   is   in   violation   of   the   Suit   Patent  and   bubble   and   vacuum   pump   for   removal   of  bubble   is   not   even   mentioned.   It   was   thus  contended   that   whole   case   pleaded   is   in  variance   with   what   is   argued   and   hence,   no  relief   can   be   granted.   It   was   contended   that  vacuum pump is not even pleaded and it is not  their   case   and   therefore,   the   plaintiffs  cannot   claim   injunction   on   this   basis.   Mr.  Soparkar   contended   that   the   defendants'   case  is   that   the   defendants   do  not  use  any  vacuum  pump.   It   was   contended   that   even   if   it   is  presumed   that   there   are   pleadings,   the  defendants'   machines   do   not   use   any   vacuum  pump   or   any   other   device   for   removal   of  bubble.   It   was   contended   that   what   is   the  basis   of   the   argument   is   the   report   of   the  Court   Commissioner.   Mr.   Soparkar,   further  referring  to   the   Court   Commissioner's  report,  contended   that   it   is   not   possible   to   infer  that the vacuum pumps were removed in all 212  machines.   It   was   contended   that   outlet   valve  can   be   provided   for   many   things.   It   was   thus  contended that even the Court Commissioner has  noted that in 212 machines, no pump was there  and   therefore,   whole   Suit   is   a   misconceived  Suit. It was contended that the report of the  Court Commissioner is wholly unrealistic, bias  and   the   Court   Commissioner   was   appointed   by  the plaintiffs and no pump has been found and  therefore, there is no possibility for use of  the pump by the defendants and thus, there is  no infringement and therefore, the application  Exh.5   deserves   to   be   rejected.   It   was  contended by Mr. Soparkar that each claim is a  different  claim   and   therefore,   the   defendants  have   not   committed   any   breach   of   the   patent.  It   was   reiterated   by   Mr.   Soparkar   that   the  defendants   are   not   using   any   vacuum   pump.   It  was contended that in the plaint, the case of  the   plaintiffs   is   the   presence   of   Selenium.  Mr. Soparkar, referring to the new application  filed   by   the   plaintiffs,   contended   that  Selenium   is   subject   matter   of   a   different  patent   application,   which   is   not   granted.   It  was also contended that the defendants are not  using   bubble   removal   device   and   hence,   the  plaintiffs   should   fail   on   merits   as   well   as  the pleadings.

55. It was therefore submitted that the plaintiffs  have   no   prima  facie   case   and   have  no   balance  of   convenience   and   no   irreparable   loss   is  likely   to   be   caused   and   therefore,   Exh.5  application must fail. 

56. In   rebuttal   to   the   contentions   raised   by   the  learned   Senior   Advocate   for   the   defendants,  Mr.   Shah,   learned   Senior   Advocate   for   the  plaintiffs   has   again   reiterated   the  submissions   which   were   made   earlier.   It   was  contended   by   Mr.   Shah   that   bubble   prevention  mechanism   is   not   confined   to   the   presence   of  vacuum pump. It was contended by Mr. Shah that  the claims no.1 and 18 are independent claims  of the Suit Patent and the apparatus is meant  to   detect   location   of   inclusions.   It   was  further   contended   that   the   said   two  independent   claims   were   for   the   purpose   of  preventing bubbles and a method of 3 dimension  elimination so as to detect exact location of  the inclusions. It was also contended that the  independent claims as per the Suit Patent is a  system and method for reduction of presence of  any   substance   other   than   inclusions   and   it  does   not   talk   of   only   vacuum   pump,   but   such  system   and   method   comprises   of   various   other  methods and steps for withdrawing gas bubbles  from the said material. It was contended that  two   things   are   provided   in   the   machine;  firstly,   the   vacuum   pump;   and   another   is   by  inserting gas which is used for removal of air  bubbles for which components are provided for  in   the   apparatus.   It   was   also   contended   that  the   same   has   nothing   to   do   with   the   vacuum  pump and as noticed even in the Commissioner's  report,   even   in   the   machines   of   the  defendants,   such   components   are   found.   Mr.  Shah   contended   that   now   in   this   context   and  juxta­position   to   what   is   exactly   granted   is  of 3 dimensional effects and this is what the  patent   is.   It   was   contended   that   the   Suit  Patent   is   to   find   out   inclusions   in   3  dimensions   and   such   patent   is   granted   and  therefore,   it   was   contended   that   such   novel  feature   is   not   found   in   any   of   the   apparatus  and   therefore,   reliance   placed   for   by   the  defendants   on   documents   at   D4   to   D6   are  different and irrelevant and it is not a prior  art. It was contended that novel feature which  is found in the machines of the defendants is  enough for prima facie case. It was therefore  contended   that   the   contentions   raised   by   the  defendants   that   the   pith   and   marrow   of   the  Suit Patent lies in the use of vacuum pump for  prevention   of   bubble   formation   is   a   figment  imagination of the defendants and is not borne  out from the record. It was further contended  that   thus,   it   is   manifest   that   withdrawal   of  gas   bubbles   under   the   Suit   Patent   is   not  limited   to   applying   vacuum.   The   said   process  is   also   stated   to   be   done   by   applying   inert  gas   and   therefore,   the   defendants'   contention  that absence of vacuum pump in their machines  shows a complete non­infringement of the Suit  Patent   is   incorrect   and   untenable.   Referring  to Paragraphs 29 and 32 of the plaint, it was  contended   by   Mr.   Shah   that   these   are   the  pleadings   as   to   how   the   defendants   have  infringed   the   patent   and   therefore,   the  question   of   plaintiffs'   pleading   that   the  whole   case   is   based   upon   Selenium   and   vacuum  pump   and   the   case  of   the   defendants   that   the  plaintiffs'   pleadings   is   based   on   the  pleadings   the   plaintiffs   have   based   their  whole   case   upon   presence   of   Selenium   and  vacuum   pump   is   not   correct.   It   was   also  contended   that   while   presence   of   bubble  prevention mechanism was considered as one of  the   novel   and   unique   feature   in   the   Suit  Patent   by   the   Controller   of   Patent,   the   Suit  Patent   was   not   granted   only   because   of   that  single feature and various other factors have  been   considered   as   novel   and   unique   that  resulted into grant of patent in favour of the  plaintiffs.   It   was   contended   that   after  considering the objections raised and even the  U.S.   patent   being   document   D1   in   the   counter  claim of defendants no.4 and 5 and so also the  opposition to grant the Suit Patent and after  considering   the   said   prior   arts,   the   Suit  Patent has been granted. It was contended that  it   contains   various   other   features   of  apparatus   and   method   as   part   of   the   amended  claims   no.1   and   18   of   the   Suit   Patent.  Referring   to   the   order   passed   by   the   Patent  Controller,   it   was   contended   that   the   Patent  Controller,   after   examining   of   such   aspects,  has come to the conclusion that prior art does  not disclose the apparatus which takes measure  for   reducing   presence   within   its   immersion  material   of   any   substance   other   than   the  inclusions having a third refractive index and  said   measures   includes   withdrawal   of   gas  bubbles from the said material and determining  the position of inclusions in gemstone in all  3 coordinates by illuminating and imaging the  entire   gemstone.   It   was   therefore   contended  that   the   Suit   Patent   is   not   granted   only  because   of   presence   of   vacuum   pump,   is  erroneously   contended   and   alleged   by   the  defendants.   Mr.   Shah   contended   that   the   Suit  was filed only on the circumstantial evidence  in   form   of   presence   of   Selenium   residue   and  rough gemstone and on the basis of the report  which was received by the plaintiffs to their  private investigators. However, when the Court  Commissioner entered the premises of defendant  no.1,   the   plaintiffs   learnt   about   the  defendants infringing the machines exactly and  the extent of infringement of the Suit Patent  by the defendants. Relying upon the provisions  of   Order   VI   Rule   2   of   the   Code   of   Civil  Procedure, 1908, it was contended by Mr. Shah  that   it   is   a   settled   law   that   the   plaint  should   contain   only   material   facts   and   not  evidence and in order to prima facie disclose  the   case   of   infringement   of   Suit   Patent,   the  plaintiffs   mentioned   those   facts   which   the  plaintiffs could unearth without assistance of  the Court Commissioner. It was contended that  while   deciding   the   interim   injunction  application,   the   Court   should   look   into   the  evidence   presented   before   the   Court   through  the Court Commissioner.