Aarur Tamilnandan Vs S.Sankar

Date of Judgment: 15.06.2023
Case No:CS No.914 of 2010
Neutral Citation No: NA
Name of Hon'ble Court: Hon'ble High Court of Madras
Name of Hon'ble Judge: S Sounther , H.J.
Case Title:Aarur Tamilnandan Vs S.Sankar

THE SUBJECT MATTER SUIT:

The Subject Matter Suit was filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant on the ground inter alia that that the the plaintiff is the author and first owner of the copy right of the story “Enthiran”

It was further asserted that the original story of the Plaintiff namely Jugiba, which published in the year 1996 , was stolen by the Defendant.

THE STORY OF PLAINTIFF:

The Plaintiff claimed to have originally authored the story namely JUGIBA which was published in the year 1996.

The subject matter Story authored by the Plaintiff was pertaining to a Humanoid Robo namely JUGIBA , who was having extra ordinary capabilities.

According to the Plaintiff, the story of JUGIBA was original literary work within the meaning of Copyright Act 1957. This story was first of all published in Tamil Magazine namely INIYA UDAYAM.

THE THEME OF PLAINTIFF'S STORY:

The story of his book was based on the theme that there was Scientist who devoted decades in creating a robot having extra ordinary super power capability. Subsequently this Robot falls in Love with Heroine.

THE ALLEGATION:

The movie Enthiran copied this story from his book and that the Robot was named Jugiba in his book. The story of movie was claimed on the book of the Plaintiff namely JUGIBA. The Story of the Plaintiff was illegally copied by the maker of the Plaintiff and used in its Cinematographic work.

THE DEFENCE:

The Plaintiff can not have any monopoly in the idea of a Robot having extra ordinary capability and falling in love with Heroine.

The story of movie ROBOT is substantially different from the story of JUGIBA. The Defendant have presented and treated the story of the Plaintiff differently from that of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff has not made out a case for Copyright Infringement.

THE JUDGEMENT:

After hearing the arguments of parties, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to dismiss the Suit filed by the Plaintiff.

THE REASONS FOR DISMISSAL.

There can not be any copyright in idea. For the purpose of Copyright Infringement, the Court is not required to look into any idea or theme.

Copyright exists only in tangible expression of idea. The Court protects only the tangible expression of the idea. There can not be any monopoly in the theme of this idea of a Robot falling in love with a girl.

The Hon'ble Court further observed that there are many dissimilarity in the book of the Plaintiff and the movie of the Defendant. The Robot of Movie was first developed for Indian Army, which subsequently developed emotions and then fallen in love with a girl. This story line was different from that of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff himself admitted in his cross examination that there are many added matters in the movie of Defendant.

There Plaintiff has not examined any third party to prove that there are substantial similarity in the competing works of the parties.

In any case, the Plaintiff has not filed any comparative analysis of competing works of the parties to assist the Court to establish that competing works are substantially similar.

DISCLAIMER

Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP ADJUTOR
Patent and Trademark Attorney
ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
9990389539

Judicial Activism

Judicial activism has been a topic of debate in India for many years. It refers to the phenomenon where judges take an active role in shaping public policy, rather than limiting themselves to interpreting the law. This has become a hot topic once again in the current scenario as many people question the role of judges in shaping public policy. 

The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land, and it provides for an independent judiciary that is free from the influence of the executive and legislative branches of the government. The judiciary is responsible for interpreting the law and ensuring that the rights of citizens are protected. 

It has the power to strike down any law that is unconstitutional or violates the rights of citizens. This power of the judiciary serves as a check on the legislative and executive branches of the government, and it ensures that the government does not exceed its powers.

However, there have been instances where judges have taken an active role in shaping public policy. This has led to a debate on whether judges should limit themselves to interpreting the law or whether they should actively shape public policy. 

It is necessary for judges to take an active role in shaping public policy in order to protect the rights of citizens. Sometimes the executive and legislative branches of the government fail to protect the rights of citizens, and it is up to the judiciary to step in and ensure that justice is served.

Judges should limit themselves to interpreting the law. Judges should not take an active role in shaping public policy, as this is the job of the executive and legislative branches of the government. The  judicial activism can lead to a situation where judges become too powerful and undermine the democratic process.

It is important to remember that the independence of the judiciary is an essential feature of Indian democracy. The judiciary serves as a check on the other two branches of the government, and it ensures that the government does not exceed its powers. The Constitution of India provides for an independent judiciary, and this independence should be respected.

At the same time, it is important to strike a balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint. Judges should not become too powerful and should limit themselves to interpreting the law. However, there may be situations where judicial activism is necessary to protect the rights of citizens. In such situations, judges should take an active role in shaping public policy.

The fabric of the Indian Constitution entails the independence of the judiciary, executive, and legislative. It is in the interest of the nation as a whole that the independence of these three major pillars of Indian democracy should be kept intact.

Judges should not become too powerful, but they should also be willing to take an active role in shaping public policy when necessary to protect the rights of citizens. Ultimately, the balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint must be struck in order to ensure that justice is served and the democratic process is respected.

Mosaicking of design is not permissible in Design Infringement case

In today's world, design infringement has become a common issue faced by the registered design holders, businesses, and corporations alike. As such, it is crucial to understand the legal aspects surrounding this topic in order to avoid any conflicts. This article will specifically examine a case where a suit for design infringement was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on the basis of registered design. The subject matter product of the defendant was pressure cooker.

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant's design was an infringing copy of their registered design. The defendant appeared and claimed that the registered design was prior published on the grounds that it was published on YouTube. However, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi restrained the defendant from using the impugned design. The court laid down several propositions while making their decision.

The Court observed that ocular comparison is the decisive test in the case of design infringement. This means that the court will compare the designs visually to determine if there is any similarity or copying.

Even a part of a product is eligible to be registered as a design provided it is capable of being made and sold separately. This means that even if only a small part of the product is unique, it can still be protected as a design if it can be separated and sold independently.

Onus of proving a design to be not novel is on the person who alleged it to be not novel. This means that if someone claims that a design is not novel, they must provide evidence to support their claim.

Mere drawing or paper publication is not sufficient until it is shown that the subject matter design is used in relation to an article. This means that simply publishing a drawing or design on paper is not enough; there must be evidence that it has been used in a real article.

Design registration is prima facie proof of the existence of novelty and originality. This means that once a design is registered, it is considered to be original and unique until proven otherwise.

In order to defeat a registered design on the ground of lacking novelty, the suit design itself has to be prior published. This means that if a design is registered, it cannot be declared as lacking novelty unless the infringing design itself was published before the registered design.

Prior publication must be in a tangible way. This means that the prior publication must be in a physical form that can be seen and touched.

Paper publication must be accompanied by evidence in such a way to enable the actual visual appearance of the design. This means that simply showing a drawing or picture of the design is not enough; there must be evidence of how it appears in reality.

The novelty must be substantial. This means that the unique aspect of the design must be significant and not trivial or easily overlooked.

Prior publication of stray features does not amount to prior publication of the entire design. This means that if a small part of the design was published before the design registration, it does not count as prior publication of the entire design.

Mosaicking of design is not permissible. This means that combining different elements of different designs to create a new design is not allowed, and it cannot be registered as unique.

A design which may be functional as well as have aesthetic attributes can qualify as a design. This means that designs that have practical functions as well as unique aesthetic features can still be protected.

The defendant who applies for the identical design cannot allege the design to be not novel. This means that if a defendant copies a registered design and applies it themselves, they cannot argue that the design is not unique.

Prior publication would defeat the registered design only in case the suit design itself is prior published. This means that prior publication of a different design does not invalidate a registered design unless the design being sued over is the prior publication.

The comparison has to be done with respect to the design and the prior arts. This means that when comparing designs, the court will consider the particular design in question as well as any other pre-existing designs or elements that may be similar.

 It is important to register your designs in order to protect your intellectual property. Design infringement can result in legal battles and significant financial losses for businesses and individuals alike. By understanding the legal aspects surrounding design infringement and taking necessary steps to protect your designs, you can avoid such conflicts and focus on growing your business.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement:29.03.2023

Case No. CS Comm 697 of 2022
Neutral Citation No.2023:DHC:2494
Name of Court: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judges: C Hari Shankar
Case Title: TTK Prestige Limited Vs KCM Appliances

Disclaimer:

I do not guarantee the correctness and/or genuineness of thoughts/idea/ and information shared herein as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception and presentation.

Ajay Amitabh Suman,
IP Adjutor and Patent & Trade Mark Attorney
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Ph no:9990389539,
Email: ajayamitabh7@gmail.com 

PATENTABILITY OF ANTINA HAVING ASYMETRIC BEAM PATTERN

The Suit Patent has been a topic of controversy in the technology world for some time now. It is a patent that describes a configuration for enhancing subscriber capacity in a cellular wireless communication system. The patent specifically relates to a split-sector antenna that emits at least one asymmetrical beam in a specific configuration.

One of the main arguments surrounding the Suit Patent has been whether or not it is for an antenna emitting asymmetrical beams. The patent is for a split-sector antenna emitting at least one asymmetrical beam in a configuration as specified, which enhances subscriber capacity. This distinction is essential, as it highlights the specific nature of the patent and its intended scope.

The next question that arises is whether or not the prior art has disclosed an antenna with the given configuration that enhances subscriber capacity in a cellular wireless communication system. This issue is critical, as it speaks to the novelty and non-obviousness of the Suit Patent.

In this Judgement, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has also thrown some light as to how the provisions of Section 3 (d) of the Patent Act has to be evaluated, besides other issues. Here is the brief discussion on the subject matter Appeal involved.

The subject matter Appeal were allowed against the
judgment dated 12.07.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in the applications filed by the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

THE SUBJECT MATTER INDIAN PATENT: IN240893 TITLED AS ASYMMETRIC BEAM PATTERN

The Plaintiff asserted right in the new kind of Antenna bearing Asymmetric Beam Pattern. The Plaintiff asserted that the subject matter Patent has efficacy over the prior art antenna having symmetrical Beam Pattern as this technology removes the problem faced by the prior art of call dropping.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi hold jusrisdiction of Hon'ble Court to entertain the suit as jusrisdiction was held to be a disputed fact, which could have been decided at the trial stage.

Neither of any prior art shows any teaching encouraging the person known in the art to defeat the Patentability of subject matter invention.

THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDGEMENT IS AS UNDER:

1.The suit is not for an antenna emitting asymmetrical beams;
it is a split-sector antenna emitting at least one asymmetrical beam in a
configuration as specified, which enhances the subscriber capacity.

2. Thus, the necessary question to be addressed is not whether an antenna
emitting asymmetrical beams was disclosed by prior art; it is whether
an antenna with the given configuration, which enhances subscriber
capacity in a cellular wireless communication system, was disclosed by
the prior art.

3.Mere discovery of a new use of a known process of a
product would not be patentable under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act.

4. However, a known product, which is specifically modified and
configured to provide a specified result of an economic value, would be
considered to be patentable as it would be a new product.

5.The Suit Patent is in respect of a method that describes a configuration for enhancing the subscriber capacity by using asymmetrical sub-sector coverage area.

6.Claim no.10 is in respect of a product that is so configured to emit
beams of the characteristics as described above.

7.It is obvious that the beams are not uncontrolled beams but are controlled to achieve the desired purpose. A product of the given description would, prima facie,be patentable.

8.The fact that a patent has been granted in some countries and
revoked in another, underscores the point that the question whether the
Suit Patent is liable to be revoked, is required to be considered by the
Court independently.

9. For evaluating the Patentability under Section (1) (a) and 64 (1) (h), not only the claims , but also whole specification has to be seen.

10.As there was no apparent perversity in the Judgment assailed, Plaintiff was held to be rightly entitled for injunction.

THE CONCLUDING NOTE:
The relevant issue is whether or not the prior art has disclosed an antenna with the given configuration that enhances subscriber capacity. This matter is of utmost importance, as it will determine the patentability of the Suit Patent under Indian Patent Law.

It is also essential to understand the criteria for patentability under Indian Patent Law. Section 3(d) of the Patents Act clarifies that the mere discovery of a new use of a known process or product would not be patentable. However, a known product that is specifically modified and configured to provide an economic value would be considered patentable as a new product.

In light of this information, it is evident that the Suit Patent would be patentable under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The Suit Patent is in respect of a method that describes a configuration for enhancing subscriber capacity by using asymmetrical sub-sector coverage area. Claim no.10 is in respect of a product that is so configured to emit beams of the characteristics as described above.

It is also worth noting that the beams emitted by the product described in the Suit Patent are not uncontrolled beams. They are controlled to achieve the desired purpose of boosting subscriber capacity, making the product prima facie patentable.

It is important to remember that when evaluating the patentability under Section (1) (a) and 64 (1) (h), not only the claims but the whole specification should be considered. This broader view of the patent information will ensure a more comprehensive understanding of its intended scope and potential feasibility.

The Suit Patent is not for an antenna emitting asymmetrical beams but for a split-sector antenna that emits at least one asymmetrical beam in a specific configuration to enhance subscriber capacity.

The issue of patentability is not whether prior art has disclosed an antenna emitting asymmetrical beams but whether prior art has disclosed an antenna with the given configuration to enhance subscriber capacity. The Suit Patent meets the criteria for patentability under Indian Patent Law. Hence in the Appeal, the Plaintiff was righty held to have been granting the injunction.

THE CASE LAW DISCUSSED:
Date of Judgement:10.04.2023
Case No. FAO(OS) (COMM) 186 of 2019
Neutral Citation No.2023:DHC:2479-DB
Name of Court: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judges: Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan
Case Title: ACE Technologies Corp Vs Communication Components Antenna

DISCLAIMER:
I do not guarantee the correctness and/or genuineness of thoughts/idea/ and information shared herein as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception and presentation.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor
Patent and Trade Mark Attorney
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Mob:9990389539
Email: ajayamitabh7@gmail.com

Pith and Marrow Doctrine in a Suit for Infringement of Patent.

As patent law continues to evolve, so does the doctrine of pith and marrow in patent infringement cases. This doctrine is an important concept that addresses the issue of a patent claim’s core, essential elements and how they relate to the claims of infringement.

The pith and marrow doctrine, also known as the substance of the invention doctrine, is a tool used to determine whether or not a particular product or process infringes upon a patent claim. It involves a careful analysis of the patent claim to determine its essential features, and then compares those features to the allegedly infringing product or process.

In essence, the doctrine of pith and marrow requires courts to look beyond the literal wording of a patent claim and instead focus on what the invention actually does. This is important because many patent claims can be written in a way that is intentionally vague or overly broad, which can make it difficult to determine exactly what the patentee is claiming as their invention.

For example, suppose a patent claim is written to cover a “device for moving objects from one location to another.” At first glance, this claim could be interpreted to cover a wide range of possible devices, from a simple conveyor belt to a complex robotic arm. However, by applying the pith and marrow doctrine, a court could determine that the essential feature of the invention is the ability to move objects in a specific way or using a particular mechanism.

In one of the recent Judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi , in relation to a Patent pertaining to Automatic Tube Cleaning System, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has once again applied this doctrine to render the Judgement. The facts of the case and the Judgement has been detailed herein below:

THE SUBJECT MATTER PATENT:

IN 382118 in respect of an Automatic Tube Cleaning System (ATCS). This is an invention as claimed by the Plaintiff is system by which tubes and ducts in air-conditioning system are kept clean.

The Patent was granted on 18.11.2021 with effect from 13.04.2012.

THE ESSENTIAL FEATURE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER PATENT:
A system comprising, inter alia, of at least:
i.Two collectors.
ii.Two pumps.
iii.One trap.
iv.One sorting system
v. One counting system.

DEFENDANT IMPUGNED SYSTEM:
i. One Pump
ii.No Sorting System
iii.No Counting System

THE BONE OF CONTENTION:

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant has copied the essential feature of the subject matter Patent.

On the contrary, the Defendant highlighted the differences between both the competing products of the parties.

This argument of the Defendant was sought to be disputed by the Plaintiff the incidental differences between the AFCS and ATCS notwithstanding, the pith and marrow of the ATCS stand replicated in the AFCS; ergo, patent infringement has occurred.

THE ISSUE AT HAND:
What is Pith and Marrow Doctrine and how it has to be evaluated?

PITH AND MARROW DOCTRINE:

The Court has to outline the essential feature of the subject matter Patent, i.e. the Pith and Marrow of the Patent. In the other words , this doctrine says the necessity of pointing out the essential feature of the subject matter Patent. Pith and Marrow of the Patent simply refers to essential features of a Patent.

HOW THE PITH AND MARROW OF A PATENT CAN BE OUTLINED?

In order to appreciate the essential feature of Patent, it is not proper to read claims of Patent first and then the specification. Rather the proper way is to read the description of the Patent first and then the claims.

Dichotomizing the claims and the accompanying specifications is, therefore, contrary to the most fundamental canons of patent law.

PITH AND MARROW OF THE SUBJECT MATTER PATENT:

All the afore mentioned element as mentioned in Para No.9 of the Claim are unalienable part of the subject matter Patent.

From reading of the summary of the invention as provided by the plaintiff itself in the complete specifications of the suit patent, the Hon'ble Single Judge reached on the conclusion that two collectors having two separate functions, two pumps, a Ball Trap, a counting system, a sorting system and an electronic controller are identified and underscored as the essential features of the suit patent.

Even at the stage of reply to First Examination Report, the Plaintiff itself asserted that afore mentioned element to be essential features of the subject matter Patent.

THE JUDGEMENT:

As all the afore mentioned essential element of the subject matter Patent were missing in the subject matter Suit Patent of the Plaintiff were missing in the product of the Patent, the Court declined the relief of interim injunction for infringement of Patent.

THE COMMENT ON PITH AND MARROW DOCTRINE:

Thus we have seen that this doctrine requires outlining the essential feature of the Patent. Once the essential features of the patent claim have been determined, the court can then compare them to the allegedly infringing product or process to see if they are the same or substantially similar. If they are, then the court may find that there has been patent infringement.

The pith and marrow doctrine has been used in a variety of patent infringement cases, including ones involving pharmaceuticals, computer software, and mechanical devices. It can be particularly useful in cases where the patent claim is written broadly or is difficult to interpret, as it allows the court to focus on the actual function of the invention rather than just its literal wording.

One important caveat to note is that the pith and marrow doctrine is not a substitute for a careful analysis of the patent claim itself. While it can be a useful tool for determining whether or not there has been patent infringement, it should not be used to completely disregard the language of the patent claim.

Overall, the doctrine of pith and marrow is an important concept in patent law that helps to ensure that patentees are receiving adequate protection for their inventions. By analyzing the essential features of a patent claim and comparing them to the allegedly infringing product or process, courts can make informed decisions about whether or not there has been infringement, and help to maintain the integrity of the patent system as a whole.

As we have seen that in the present case, the Hon'ble High Court has refused to grant the injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, as the Defendant has not used all the essential features of the Plaintiff's Patent (the pith and marrow of Plaintiff's Patent). This is another aspect that Plaintiff's own admission to FER report helped the Hon'ble Court to outline the essential feature of the subject matter Patent.

The Case Law Discussed:
Judgment date: 20.03.2023
Case No: CS(COMM) 366/2022
Neutral Citation No. 2023:DHC:2334
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Justice: C Hari Shankar, H.J.
Case Title: Ecomax Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Energo Building Solution LLP

DISCLAIMER:

This information is being shared in the public interest. It should not be treated as a substitute for legal advice as there may be possibility of error in perception, presentation and interpretation of facts and the law involved therein.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Mob:9990389539
Email: ajayamitabh7@gmail.com