Suit for infringement of patent

2016 CLD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 60Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001), S. 114(3)Suit for infringement of patentCivil Procedure Code, applicability of

Under S. 114(3) of Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, provisions of C.P.C. are made applicable to appeal before High Court or District Court under the Ordinance

Unlike Trade Marks Ordinance, 20001, no provision was made in Patents Ordinance, 2000, whereby provision of any law including C.P.C. had been made applicable for purpose of regulating proceedings of suit or appeal under Patents Ordinance, 2000.

2016 CLD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 60 & 61Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 96 & O. VII, R. 11Suit for infringement of patentRejection of plaint, remedy againstAppeal from original decreeMaintainabilityPlaint of suit filed under S. 60 of Patents Ordinance, 2000 was rejected

Contention of plaintiff was that since no other remedy was available against order passed by Trial Court in suit, so remedy of appeal under general law was available

Validity

­-Under S. 96, C.P.C., appeal was available against decree passed by courts subordinate to such appellate court performing its function under C.P.C.

Under Ss. 60 & 61 of Patents Ordinance, 2000, Trial Court was competent to pass any order, but no decree was required to be passed by Trial Court while trying a suit under special law

Under Patents Ordinance, 2000, no procedure had been made applicable including the C.P.C. to regulate proceedings of trial

Remedy of appeal was provided in Chapter XVIII of Patents Ordinance, 2000, but same was restricted to appeals from decision, order or direction of Controller or Federal Government made under any provision of the Patents Ordinance, 2000

No appeal was provided under said Chapter from any order passed by District Judge in its capacity of Trial Court before any forum

Right of appeal was creation of statute

Person aggrieved of order passed by District Judge in suit under S. 60 of Patents Ordinance, 2000 was not competent to avail remedy of appeal under S. 96, C.P.C.

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 CLD 2229 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 46Suit for infringement of patentMaintainabilityFormula of a medicineSubsequent use of patent formula

Plaintiff sought indulgence of Court against defendant regarding a formula of medicine, patent of which was already registered in the name of defendant company

Validity

Plaintiff attempted to eclipse long established rights of patent-holder who neither challenged nor attacked plaintiff (on the date of filing of suit)

Action of plaintiff failed for want of requisites of S. 46 of Patents Ordinance, 2000, as well as making the suit opportunistic, groundless and unwarranted

Alternate remedies were available to plaintiff to file opposition and/or revocation proceedings before Patent Officer at the appropriate times

High Court could not declare already granted patent from a Court as invalid, as an alternate and specialist forum (of the Patent Office) was timely available

Such was a question of forum non-conveniens and was highly technical in nature and the same was left to technical experts at Patent Office to be handled at its best

High Court directed to transfer revocation proceedings to Patent Office as the same were filed pursuant to the suit

Suit was dismissed with cost in circumstances.