Whether this change of material is an inventive step?

Whether this change of material is an inventive step? written by Prapti Kothari student of Institute of Law, Nirma university

DHANPAT SETH AND ORS. V. NIL KAMAL PLASTIC CRATES LTD. CITATION: AIR 2008 HP 23

MATERIAL FACTS

On 11/07/2005, the plaintiffs (appellants) lodged a complaint against the defendants for infringement of their patent No .195917. The patent was a tool that enabled agricultural products to be manually transported. For its characteristics as well as layout, a patent was issued. The product’s inventor was Mr. Dhanpat Seth. The defendants, Nilkamal Plastic Ltd., are manufacturers of numerous plastic goods in several states throughout India. The defendant began to manufacture and distribute a device that was identical to the patent of the plaintiffs which thus resulted in the filing of this lawsuit.

ISSUES

• Whether the appellant is qualified to issue a decree for a permanent prohibitive injunction prohibiting the defendant in some way from violating Patent No.195917?
• Whether the appellant is qualified to compensation as prayed for on account of gains and mesne profits?
• Whether the products delivered by the defendant are subject to seizure and destruction by a violation of the patent?

RULE OF LAW

• Section 2(1)(j) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970
• Section 2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970
• Section 3(p) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970

ANALYSIS

The patented device was fairly similar to the Kilta device conventionally employed, and it was merely the invention of a new type of a common material. The device developed by the appellants was essentially a Kilta, but instead of bamboo, it was made of synthetic polymeric material (which is widely acknowledged as plastic). The only noticeable distinction is that the device now being produced has adjustable buckled nylon straps. The nylon straps currently attached were practically iterations of even the ropes employed in the traditional Kilta. The simple implementation of buckles does not lead to an invention or advanced stimulation being considered a new device. In addition, the appellants were unable to prove that the patented device had the effect of improving the functionality of the historically used Kilta device.

It was also noted that, since prehistoric times, Kilta has been utilized in agriculture to transport agricultural products in hill regions, in particular in the State of Himachal Pradesh, and that it could not be claimed that the invention was new and innovative. At first sight, pictorial comparisons of the three products show that the products created by the appellants and the defendant are simulated replicas of the conventional Kilta. The invention was a part of the transparent neology provided under Sec 3(p) of the Patents Act and thus was not an invention.

The fact that the innovation is an innovative move is invalidated because it is conventional knowledge. While plastic is the raw material used, the invention is merely a replication of Kilta and reinforces its established characteristics. The court, therefore, overturned the patent given to the appellants under Sec 64 r/w Sec. 13 of the Act ‘A System for Physically Transporting the Agricultural Product’.

Nowadays, traditional objects produced out of wood, iron, metal, leather, and other organic materials have been substituted by plastic. For instance, chairs, desks, containers, accessories, and many other things have historically been made of natural materials but are now made from plastic. The simple fact that the product is made of polymeric substance instead of bamboo is, thus, not an innovative move featuring any ingenuity or creativity. There is hardly anything innovative about the method of making the traditional Kilta from synthetic material than making from natural material.

Therefore, on the basis of past usage, the supposed patent was held invalid. As part of their conventional knowledge, it was reported that the natives were already employing such a tool classified as ‘Kilta’. Therefore, it falls short of creative and innovative execution. There was, hence, a breach.

CONCLUSION

It is essential to take into account that in the desire to be patentable, advancement on something actually existing or synthesis of multiple items already recognized should be more than a simple enhancement of the facility; and the criterion of innovation or an “inventive step” must be specifically fulfilled. A new product or a superior or affordable product than before must be created in order for the innovation or the product to be patentable. The composition of existing recognized fractions may be incorporated in such a way that they generate a new mechanism or enhanced result through their functioning. The issuance of a patent does not compensate for the mere set of more than one fraction or objects, not requiring the operation of any creative or innovative faculty.