2nd September 2019
Delhi High Court has held that just because an earlier registration under the Insecticides Act, was in favour of the plaintiff and later the defendant, it does not mean that the patented process was disclosed.
It noted that the defendant was not able to show that the steps in the process patent were disclosed previously.
Court observed that the language of s.30 makes it clear that disclosure to Govt Dept not just of patentee but any other person would not constitute prior publication.
It noted that in order to constitute disclosure, there has to be public manufacture, use or sale.
Court in Shogun Organics Ltd v. Gaur Hari Guchhait held that plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction restraining defendants from manufacturing and sale of D-trans Allethrin.
It observed that there was no evidence by defendant to rebut plaintiff’s case of infringement. Judgement in Lallubhai Chakubhai Jarivala v. Shamalda Shankalchand Shah was relied on.
It was held that any patent that discloses a novel process would not contain analysis of process but would merely discuss the prior art, mention the advantages of the inventive steps and disclose the exact process sought to be patented.
The Court also observed that disclosure of the process is different from an external analysis of the process as to how it is novel and inventive. It noted that the latter was contained in expert testimony of the plaintiff’s witness.