Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2019 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1980 - SUPREME COURTSuit for injunction restraining infringement of an existing and valid patent - seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants from using the trademark "BOLGARD" and "BOLGARD II" brand cotton technology - seeking to restrain the Defendants from selling and or using seeds/hybrid seeds bearing the patented technology, infringing the registered patent of the Plaintiffs, along with rendition of accounts - HELD THAT:- Section 64 of the Act provides for revocation of patent based on a counter claim in a suit. It necessarily presupposes a valid consideration of the claims in the suit and the counter claim in accordance with law and not summary adjudication sans evidence by abstract consideration based on text books only. The Code of Civil Procedure provides a detailed procedure with regard to the manner in which a suit instituted Under Section 9, including a counter claim has to be considered and adjudicated. The Code mandates a procedure by settlement of issues, examination and cross examination of witnesses by the parties, including discovery/inspection of documents, culminating in the hearing of the suit and decree. A suit can be disposed of at the initial stage only on an admission inter alia Under Order 12 Rule 6 or when the parties are not in issue Under Order 16 Rule 1 and the other grounds mentioned therein, none of which are applicable herein. The Division Bench ought not to have disposed of the suit in a summary manner by relying on documents only, extracted from the public domain, and not even filed as exhibits in the suit, much less examination of expert witnesses, in the facts of the present case. There is no gain saying that the issues raised were complicated requiring technological and expert evidence with regard to issues of chemical process, biochemical, biotechnical and microbiological processes and more importantly whether the nucleic acid sequence trait once inserted could be removed from that variety or not and whether the patented DNA sequence was a plant or a part of a plant etc. are again all matters which were required to be considered at the final hearing of the suit. The Division Bench ought to have confined itself to examination of the validity of the order of injunction granted by the learned Single Judge only. But we are not inclined to remand the matter for that purpose to the Division Bench as we are satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the case that the nature of the injunctive relief granted by the Single Judge was in order and merits no interference during the pendency of the suit. The order of the Division Bench is set aside - Appeal disposed off.
|