Recently, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CTP
Environment S.A.S vs. Santro Technologies Ltd. & Ors. was
pleased to grant ad-interim reliefs in favour of the Plaintiff
restraining the Defendants from using a process that was identical
with and/or substantially similar to the process patent of the
Plaintiff in India. A copy of the order can be found here.
The Plaintiff is a French company and the Defendant No.1 is an
Israeli company having its office in Mumbai and the Defendant No.2
is a majority shareholder of the Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff has
registered a process Patent No. 236532 relating to a novel method
of cleaning furnaces 'online' i.e. without completely
shutting down the furnace as the earlier technologies were usable
only when the furnace was completely offline. The Defendants are
providing similar services of cleaning furnaces online whose
process is alleged to be identical with or substantially similar to
the Plaintiff's patent which is an infringement of the
Plaintiff's said process patent.
Whether the process used by the Defendants is identical with or
substantially similar to the Plaintiff's patent and thus,
amounting to infringement of the Plaintiff's Patent?
Plaintiff contended that the Defendant No.1 through its website
is offering competing and infringing services which is identical
with and/or substantially similar to the Plaintiff's patent.
The brochures and other advertising material used by the Defendants
also appear to be similar to the Plaintiff's patent. Plaintiff
further relied upon an expert opinion of Dr. C.S. Mathpathi, an
Assistant Professor in Department of Chemical Engineering at
Institute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai, who in unequivocal terms
concluded that there is a high likelihood that Defendants'
process is same or substantially similar to the Plaintiff's
The Plaintiff's application for grant of urgent ad-interim
reliefs was heard ex-parte as the Defendants failed to appear at
the time of hearing in spite of being served with a notice. The
Hon'ble Court upon hearing the Plaintiff and on the basis of
expert opinion of Dr. C.S. Mathpathi, held that prima facie the
process used by the Defendants is identical with and/or
substantially similar to the Plaintiff's patented process and
thus, restrained the Defendants from using the infringing process
or using, offering for sale, selling or importing for those
purposes the product obtained directly by that process or any such,
further and / or any other process similar to the said patent of
the Plaintiff in India.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
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).