- (1.)This suit is filed under S.104 and 108 of the Indian Patents Act for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing and selling polymer based brush coir mats using the plaintiffs invention or any part thereof, or adopting in the process of manufacture the specially designed and deviced metal core or in any manner infringing the patent right of the plaintiffs in the process of manufacturing polymer based brush coir mats in any manner whatsoever and for damages of Rs. 22,500 with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of suit till realisation as per the statement of accounts shown and also to recover future damages in the rate of Rs. 22,500 per annum with interest at the rate of 1.8 per cent per annum from the defendants and their assets and with costs.
(2.)This suit was filed originally as O.S. No. 13/93 before the District Court of Kottayam and in view of the counter claim made by the defendants, the suit was transferred to this court for trial.
(3.)The material averments in the plaint are that the plaintiffs invented and developed a particular technique in the manufacture of polymer based brush mats which was duly patented under the Indian Patents Act (Act 39 of 1970) with patent No. 1,67746 dated 2nd July 1986. The Controller of patents caused the patent to be sealed and has issued certificate A.No. 14595 dated 20th September 1991. Thus the plaintiffs have got the privilege of using or exercising their invention in India for a term, of 14 years from 22nd July 1986 exclusively. No one else has got the right or authority to use the said device or any part thereof without the permission from the plaintiffs. The patented invention consists of a flat metal core having a groove at its centre running along its length. With the help of this metal core more than one mat can be produced simultaneously and the flat metal core is the essential and material part of the patented invention. In the process of manufacturing the coir yarn is wound over the cores and then they are completely covered by unvulcanised compounded rubber so that the exposed portions of the wound yarn is completely covered by the rubber compound on the top, bottom and sides. Then this assembly is vulcanised under pressure in a heated press. After cooling the cores are removed by cutting the yarn along the groove provided at the centre of each core. Then the cores are removed to get the two mats simultaneously. The patented invention is a composite process specially designed and devised and used in the manufacture of mats. Under the new invention no separate mould or shearing is required. The mats had rubber walls on lateral and dorsel sides which give a better appearance and greater stability to the final product. There are other special advantages also. It is highly economical and it saves labour considerably. Wastage of raw materials is avoided. High productivity, better stability and greater durability are other features. Because of the use of the special metal core the mats got well formed in regular channels, which facilitate easy dusting and cleaning. The product has gained high appreciation resulting in great demand in the market. Because of its unique and singular qualitiers the new invention has proved to be a break through in the conventional method and enhanced its utility coupled with novelty. The second defendant was one of the partners of M/s Rubcoir Industries, which was a firm engaged in the manufacture of polymer based brush mats under an assignment from the plaintiff. They were producing and marketing only polymer based non woven brush mats using the plaintiffs' invention. Acknowledging this fact the firm was paying royalty to the plaintiffs for using the patent of their invention. Thus the patented invention was used from 25th September 1986 to 6th August 1992. The second defendant was fully aware of all the techniques and steps in the manufacturing process of the patented invention. The said firm was dissolved with effect from 31st October 1992 and the assignment granted to it also terminated accordingly. The second defendant started another industrial unit along with defendants 3 and 4 under the name and style M/s Coiron Industries for the manufacture of the same product adopting the substantial and material part of the plaintiffs' patented invention. The defendants had no right or authority to adopt on use the plaintiffs' invention or any part thereof in the process of manufacturing polymer based rubber mats without their consent or permission. Thus it is alleged that the conduct of the defendants is highly irregular and illegal and it is in flagrant violation and gross infringement of the patent right of the plaintiffs. Thus the plaintiffs prayed for restraining the defendants from infringing the rights of the plaintiffs failing which the plaintiffs will be put to irreparable loss, injury and hardship. The defendants started marketing their illegal product. The products of the plaintiffs and the defendants on comparison showed that the products are similar and identical in all respects. Thus the new and material part of the plaintiffs' invention has been pirated and adopted by the defendants. After the dissolution of the firm M/s Rubcoir Industries, the plaintiffs were negotiating with Mrs. Beena Mathew, Kadavil House, Ruby Nagar, Changanacherry. But due to the illegal introduction of the similar and identical product by the defendants, the plaintiffs could not enter into an agreement because Beena Mathew expressed her disinterest in the patented invention as similar products are freely manufactured and marketed by the defendants. Thus the piracy of the defendants has been severely affected by the plaintiffs in all respects including their royalty. The plaintiffs alleged to have suffered damages at the rate of Rs. 25,000 per year as the defendants started illegal production from April 1993 onwards. In spite of repeated requests the defendants did not abstain from the illegal course of action. Thus the plaintiffs claimed Rs. 10,000 by way of exemplary damage for infringing their patent right. Thus the plaintiffs prayed for a decree of prohibitory injunction and damages and costs.