1986 (1) TMI 380 - SC - Companies Law

Supreme Court dismisses patent appeal due to lack of novelty and secrecy in patented process

MONSANTO COMPANY BY THEIR PATENT AGENT, DE PENNING AND DEPEN Versus CORAMANDAL INDAG PRODUCTS (P) LTD.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in a patent infringement case where the validity of the patent in question (number 125381) was challenged. The ... Infringement of patents Held that:- Herbicide CP 53619 (Butachlor) was publicly known before Patent Number 125381 was granted. Its formula and use had already been made known to the public by the report of the International Rice Research Institute for the year 1968. No one claimed any patent or any other exclusive right in Butachlor. To satisfy the requirement of being publicly known as used in clauses (e) and (f) of sec. 64(1), it is not necessary that it should be widely used to the knowledge of the consumer public. It is sufficient if it is known to the persons who are engaged in the pursuit of knowledge of the patented product or process either as men of sciene or men of commerce or consumers. The section of the public who, as men of science or men of commerce, were interested in knowing about Herbicides which would destroy weeds but not rice, must have been aware of the discovery of Butachlor. There was no secret about the active agent Butachlor as claimed by the plaintiffs since there was no patent for Butachlor, as admitted by the plaintiffs. Emulsification was the well-known and common process by which any Herbicide could be used. Neither Butachlor nor the process of Emulsification was capable of being claimed by the plaintiff as their exclusive property. The solvent and the emulsifier were not secrets and they were admittedly not secrets and they were ordinary market products. From the beginning to the end, there was no secret and there was no invention by the palintiffs. The ingredients, the active ingredient, the solvent and the emulsifier, were known; the process was known, the product was known and the use was known. The plaintiffs were merely camouflaging a substance whose discovery was known through out the world and trying to enfold it in their specification relating to Patent Number 125381. The patent is, therefore, liable to be revoked. Issues Involved:1. Alleged infringement of patent rights.2. Validity of the patents in question.3. Public knowledge and use of the patented substance.4. Secrecy and novelty of the patented process.Detailed Analysis:1. Alleged Infringement of Patent Rights:The Monsanto Company, a Multi-National Company, alleged that an Indian Private Limited Company infringed their patents (Numbers 104120 and 125381). The suit was initially about both patents but was confined to patent number 125381 as the other patent's validity period expired during the suit. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court dismissed it. The Supreme Court found no substantial questions of law of great importance and noted that both lower courts misdirected themselves.2. Validity of the Patents in Question:The plaintiffs claimed that their patents covered the herbicide Butachlor. However, it was admitted by the plaintiffs and their witnesses that Butachlor was not patented by anyone, including the plaintiffs. The herbicide CP53619, known as Butachlor, was discovered before 1968 and was publicly known as per the International Rice Research Institute reports of 1968 and 1969. The court noted that Butachlor was the property of the global population and not subject to any patent.3. Public Knowledge and Use of the Patented Substance:The court highlighted that Butachlor was publicly known before the grant of patent number 125381. The formula and use of Butachlor were made public by the International Rice Research Institute. The court emphasized that public knowledge does not require widespread use but sufficient awareness among those engaged in relevant scientific or commercial pursuits.4. Secrecy and Novelty of the Patented Process:The plaintiffs claimed secrecy in the process of making a Butachlor emulsifiable concentrate. However, the court found that emulsification is a well-known process in the pesticide industry. The solvent and emulsifying agents used by the plaintiffs were ordinary market products, and there was no secrecy or novelty in their use. The court concluded that there was no invention by the plaintiffs as the ingredients, process, product, and use were all known.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the patent number 125381 was liable to be revoked as it did not meet the criteria of an invention under the Patents Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court did not delve into the various legal questions argued by the plaintiffs' counsel, keeping their interest purely academic.Appeal dismissed.