Asian Electronics Ltd. vs. Havells India Ltd.

2010(44)PTC66(Del)
By: Alo Dutt LLM-IPR 478

Facts

Plaintiff i.e., Asian Electronics had a Patent on Conversion kit to change the fluorescent lightening units inductive operation to electronic operation. Patent granted on 27.02.2007. In 2008 plaintiff through market investigation came to know that the Defendant i.e., Havells is also selling the identical lightening unit and conversion system. Plaintiff contended that Havells copied its Patent and sued them for the infringement.

Issue
Whether

the Patent granted to the plaintiffs product qualifies the test of patentability.

Arguments of Plaintiff

Novel and unique features of the Asian Products are the two adaptors based on two sides which assist in the process of conversion to electric current from induction, thus minimizes flickering which is normally associated with fluorescent lights. Argued by the plaintiff that the patent application having been made in 1999 whereby an opportunity was afforded to all interested to oppose, after the investigation of which it was granted. So defendants cannot contend that Asians Products are not novel. They relied on K. Ramu v. Adyan Anand Bhavan case in which it was held by court that grant of patent is sufficient for the court to infer novelty uniqueness and presence of inventive step

Arguments of defendant

According to Havells, Asians Patent is a mere workshop result or minor trade variant, lacking the essential inventive step as to warrant patent grant under the Act. (Bar of section 3(d) of the Patent Act, 1970) Asians patent is a mere re-arrangement of known devices, each functioning independently of one another in a known way by virtue of being in the public domain. (Section 3(f) of the patent Act) Anticipated by the prior U.S. patent.

Judgement

Court held that an invention cannot be patentable by virtue of mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one reactant. Dismissing the application for interim injunction observed that the plaintiff were not claiming an invention in any of the individual components of the conversion kit. Instead the invention was claimed for a conversion kit which comprised of several individual components such as the ADAPTORS, BALLAST etc. No interim relief was granted by the court.