The case of Asian Electronics Ltd. Vs. Jumbo Electric
Company 2010 (42) PC 99 (Del.)} a suit for permanent
injunction was filed for the infringement a patent held in respect
of a conversion kit to change fluorescent lighting units'
inductive operation to electronic operation. The invention claimed
by Asian Electronics Ltd was to the effect that their patented
conversion kit enabled the fitting of a tube described as T12 to be
used for a sleeker and shorter length tube called as T5.
Earlier an application moved for interim injunction had been
granted, ex parte, in favour of Asian Electronics Ltd.
restraining Jumbo Electronics from manufacturing, selling,
distributing the conversion kit embodying Asian Electronics'
patent. Jumbo Electric Co. thereafter moved an application under
Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the ex parte
Asian Electronics contended that Jumbo Electronics was
manufacturing and selling identical conversion kits, and one such
kit was purchased by Asian Electronics which was manufactured by
Jumbo Electronics Company, from an electronic shop in Delhi .It was
further stated that they had not granted any license to the Jumbo
Electronics for the use of the said patent and therefore
manufacturing of lighting units and conversion kits by Jumbo
Electronics was unauthorized and amounted to infringement of Asian
Electronics' patent rights.
The court after perusal of the plaint concluded that by wording
the pleadings deceptively, production of a product which is not
violative of any patent cannot be stalled. In order to constitute
violation of a patent, it is essential to show that the invention
claimed involved some technical or scientific advancement as
compared to the existing products of knowledge. Creating of a
conversion device (adopter) is not an offence unless it involves
copying of a unique electronic circuit invented by someone. Asian
Electronics failed to establish how Jumbo Electronics had copied
its invention and, the Court concluded that there is no bar in
using the existing inventions by other persons. In this view, the
ex parte injunction was vacated and application vide Order 39 Rule
4 CPC, with a concluding remark that getting a patent in respect of
a conversion kit did not imply that Asian Electronics gets monopoly
over its use.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).