Case 1
KRISHNA JAJODIA | 1402079

Plaintiff vs Defendant
Garware-Wall
Ropes Ltd

Techfab India
And 5 Ors.

Case : Patent infringement

The Case (Facts)
Gujarat High Court
Bench: M Shah, K Puj
Appellant is a well reputed manufacturer and seller of synthetic ropes, twines and yarns, nettings and various rope products including Geosynthetic products and systems.
One of such products manufactured and sold by the appellant is known as Synthetic Rope Gabion, referred to as SRG Invention in the plaint of the suit.

SRG Invention, developed by the appellant through its exhaustive R&D experiments was granted a
Patent
Such claim for a patent by the appellant was published in the Gazette of India for opposition, if any on
04.02.2005.
As there was no opposition, the Controller of Patent sealed the patent on 13.05.2005. It bears a
Patent No. 195352 in favour of the appellant.

Appalent’s appeal
The respondent 1 has infringed their patent and started manufacturing and selling of product similar to SRG invention
The respondent Nos. 2 to 6, who were serving with the appellant and were closely connected with the affairs of the appellant's patented SRG Invention, were absorbed by respondent No. 1.
The injunction application was heard by this Court and vide CAV Judgment dated 13.07.2006, the Learned Single Judge has refused to grant the interim injunction as prayed for by the appellant. Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Y. J. Trivedi for the appellant has submitted that grant of a patent is in a nature of a quid pro quo transaction. The patent applicant is promised, of market exclusivity and monopoly rights for a certain period i.e. 20 years, in respect of the invention, subject to qualifying for a Patent, in exchange of the Patent
Applicant disclosing his invention to the society

Appalent’s appeal
Mr. Trivedi has further submitted that although synthetic ropes and gabions, individually are known earlier, a synthetic rope gabion along with other features, was not publicly known and hence it is an invention for the purposes of the Patent Act, 1970.
He has further submitted that the SRG Invention has many advantages and solves the problems and limitations of the known types of gabions. The fact of validity of the appellant's Patent is also clear from the commercial success of the appellant's SRG Invention and the long-felt need for a solution which the SRG Invention fulfills.

The respondent's product has all and/or substantial features of the appellant's patented SRG
Invention in it. Difference, if any, made by the respondent are inconsequential.
The appellant has been in the market in respect of the SRG Invention since the filing of the
Patent Application and the appellant has made huge investments in that behalf. The appellant has been bestowed with statutory rights and hence, infringement of such rights call for grant of temporary injunction as prayed for by the appellant.

Respondent appeal
Mr. K.S. Nanavati, learned Senior advocate appearing for the respondents has submitted that the gabion claimed by the appellant to be their own invention is neither true nor correct.
Mr. Nanavati has further submitted that the process of the items manufactured by the respondent No. 1 is different from that of the appellant.
Mr. Nanavati has further submitted that rope can not be patented by any one because it is available in various forms and it varies in its strength, dimension, density, thickness, abrasion resistance, thermal stability etc.

Findings and conclusions of the Learned Single
Judge
The plaintiff must make out a strong prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction and that when serious controversy exists as to whether or not the invention made by the plaintiff is a new or it involves inventive skills, the Court should not grant injunction in favour of plaintiff and that if the patent is new and its validity is not established in judicial proceedings and the defendant's endeavour is to show that the patent ought not to have been granted, ordinarily, the Court should not issue a temporary injunction.
The Learned Single Judge has further observed that when the validity of the patent has been challenged on the ground that patent has been obtained by fraud, there is no new invention of a new product, but it is simply an extension of what was earlier used or was known to the world, then, the extra burden lies upon the plaintiffs to show to the Court that their work or invention of the product is not simply an extension.

Findings and conclusions of the Learned Single
Judge
The Learned Single Judge further took the view that patent may not be granted in favour of some one, who very cunningly make an application to the authority for grant of patent without even disclosing that what is new in its item and how it was not known to the public previously.
The Learned Single Judge has also given specific finding to the effect that the defendants are successful in showing that their product is something different than what has been registered in favour of the plaintiffs. The product manufactured by the defendants, in the considered opinion of the Learned Single Judge, is not same or similar to what is patented in favour of the plaintiffs.
Ultimately, the Learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the product of the plaintiff is neither new nor a result of the research, nor it is cheaper, nor it is something, which, for the first time, came into existence and was not known in the field.

High Court Judgement
As against the appellants-plaintiffs' submissions, the main thirst of arguments on behalf of the respondents is that the Learned Single Judge has correctly applied the principles of law and considered both documentary evidence as well as oral submissions in their true perspective.
Based on this correct application of law as well as consideration of documentary evidence, the
Learned Single Judge has correctly recorded the findings that there is no prima facie case nor balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and no irreparable injury will be caused to the plaintiff, but on the contrary, irreparable injury will be caused to the defendant if injunction is granted, passed the final order directing the defendant to maintain account taking the view that the damages would adequately compensate the plaintiff, for the loss suffered, if the suit is decreed. Since the correct principles have been applied and all documentary evidences and oral submissions have been considered, the Appellate Court ought not to interfere with the exercise of discretion of the Learned Single Judge.

High Court Judgement
The Learned Single Judge has adequately protected the interest of the plaintiff by directing the defendant to maintain account and directing the defendant to secure their claim for damages.
The plaintiff has not shown how and why payment of compensation is not an adequate remedy.
There is a serious controversy raised in the counter claim regarding the validity of the patent claimed by and granted in favour of the plaintiff on several grounds. Therefore, there is no prima facie case for grant of an interim relief as prayed for. The plaintiff has claimed patent in respect of a pre-fabricated collapsible gabion product in flexible form made from ropes.
Controller had no occasion to examine the claim made by the plaintiff as an improvement over the existing art and uphold the claim for patent made by the plaintiff.
Even if a combination of features, independently found to exist in different gabion products, can be claimed to be novelty as contended by the plaintiff, such a claim should have been made by the plaintiff after discovering the existing prior art.

High Court Judgement
It is humanly impossible for any examiner to check for prior art in all the databases not only of patents granted or pending in all languages all over the world, but also all other documents or publications including prior knowledge in any language anywhere in the world.
The plaintiffs have at different places in different pleadings stated that their invention is for an improvement over the prior art and not for a new product. They were alleged to have concealed the material fact on their patent application, which they later admitted that Gabions of other kind were in existence before the date of their patent application.
From the foregoing discussion and taking overall view of the matter, we find ourselves in agreement with the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Result
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT FOUND THEMSELVES IN
AGREEMENT WITH THE INTERLOCUTORY ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE AND REFUSED TO GRANT INTERIM RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR
BY THE APPELLANTS -PLAINTIFFS

Case 2
KRISHNA JAJODIA | 1402079

Plaintiff vs Defendant

R.K.Jain

Union Of India

Case : breach of information

The Case (Facts)
The appellant challenges the final judgment and order dated 20th April, 2012 passed by the
Delhi High Court.
What is this case about ?
“the information sought by the appellant herein is the third party information wherein third party may plead a privacy defence and the proper question would be as to whether divulging of such an information is in the public interest or not”
The appellant filed an application to Central Public Information Officer under Section 6 of the
Right to Information Act, on 7th October, 2009 seeking the copies of all note sheets and correspondence pages of file relating to one Ms. Jyoti Balasundram, Member/CESTAT. The Under
Secretary, who is the CPIO denied the information by impugned letter dated 15th October, 2009 on the ground that the information sought attracts Clause 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Delhi High Court Judgement
After the appeal of the appellant was rejected for the second time before the Central
Information Commission the case was taken to the Delhi High Court.
It was observed that if the CIC comes to a conclusion that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought by the appellant, the CIC would follow the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005. The case was dismissed here.

Supreme Court Hearing
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant wanted information in a separate file other than the ACR file, namely, the “follow up action” .
However, Supreme court found came to the conclusion that the information sought for was not different or distinguished from ACR. The learned Single Judge held that the said file contains correspondence in relation to the remarks recorded by the President of the CESTAT in relation to
Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, a Member and also contains the reasons why the said remarks have eventually been dropped. Therefore, recordings made in the said file constitute an integral part of the ACR record of the officer in question.

Result
THE FILE REFERRED TO BY THE APPELLANT RELATED TO THE ANNUAL
CONFIDENTIAL RECORD OF A THIRD -PARTY, MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM AND
WAS SPECIFIC TO SUBSTANTIATION BY THE REPORTING OFFICER OF THE
COMMENTS MADE IN HER ACRS ABOUT THE THIRD – PARTY ’S INTEGRITY.
THEREFORE, APPELLANT ’S PLEA THAT THE MAT TER WAS ABOUT A PUBLIC
SERVANT ’S INTEGRITY PER -SE IS NOT VALID.

Thank You