Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7K views

    Case Study On Patents

    Uploaded by

    brainleague
    The document summarizes a patent dispute heard by the Supreme Court of India. The patent in question was for a "Means for holding utensils for turning purposes." The patent holder, Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam, sued Hindustan Metal Industries for infringement. Hindustan Metal Industries argued that the patent should be revoked on grounds that the invention was not novel or inventive. The Supreme Court had to determine the validity of the patent and whether the invention involved an inventive step. The Court highlighted that a patent requires an inventive adaptation of existing knowledge, not just applying an old method to a new use in an obvious way.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Study On Patents

    Uploaded by

    brainleague
    7K views7 pages
    The document summarizes a patent dispute heard by the Supreme Court of India. The patent in question was for a "Means for holding utensils for turning purposes." The patent holder, Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam, sued Hindustan Metal Industries for infringement. Hindustan Metal Industries argued that the patent should be revoked on grounds that the invention was not novel or inventive. The Supreme Court had to determine the validity of the patent and whether the invention involved an inventive step. The Court highlighted that a patent requires an inventive adaptation of existing knowledge, not just applying an old method to a new use in an obvious way.

    Original Description:

    Presentation on Case Study of Patents

    Original Title

    Case Study on Patents

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a patent dispute heard by the Supreme Court of India. The patent in question was for a "Means for holding utensils for turning purposes." The patent holder, Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam, sued Hindustan Metal Industries for infringement. Hindustan Metal Industries argued that the patent should be revoked on grounds that the invention was not novel or inventive. The Supreme Court had to determine the validity of the patent and whether the invention involved an inventive step. The Court highlighted that a patent requires an inventive adaptation of existing knowledge, not just applying an old method to a new use in an obvious way.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    7K views7 pages

    Case Study On Patents

    Uploaded by

    brainleague
    The document summarizes a patent dispute heard by the Supreme Court of India. The patent in question was for a "Means for holding utensils for turning purposes." The patent holder, Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam, sued Hindustan Metal Industries for infringement. Hindustan Metal Industries argued that the patent should be revoked on grounds that the invention was not novel or inventive. The Supreme Court had to determine the validity of the patent and whether the invention involved an inventive step. The Court highlighted that a patent requires an inventive adaptation of existing knowledge, not just applying an old method to a new use in an obvious way.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 7

    Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam

    Vs.

    Hindustan Metal Industries

    By
    Kartik Puttaiah
    Brain League IP Services

    © 2009 Brain League IP Services Pvt. Ltd


    Overview of the case
    Patent in question: "Means for holding utensils for turning purposes“

    Date of patent: December 13, 1951

    Grant of patent on May 6, 1953 under Indian Patent and Designs Act, 1911

    Suit for injunction and damages filed in the Court of the District Judge

    Decision of Single Judge at the High Court

    Decision of Division Bench of the High Court

    Decision by the Supreme Court


    Proceedings – Patent in question…
    Improvement over a old method of holding utensils during the
    manufacturing process
    Shyam – Patent has to be revoked
    √ X •Method covered by the patent has been known and openly and commonly
    in use

    √ X •Invention was not on the date of the patent

    √ X •Invention was not a manner of new manufacture or improvement

    √ X •Invention did not involve any inventive step or ingenuity

    X X •Patent has no utility


    •That the known uses, to which a tailstock has been put, were centering the
    article, holding along work by a pointed tailstock by pivoting it and holding
    an article in metal spinning by the pressure of a pad attached to the
    tailstock.

    •That the method of holding an article by the pressure of a point of a


    pointed tailstock was neither used nor known.
    Questions before Supreme Court
    •Validity of a patent is not guaranteed by the grant - Section 13(4) of the
    Patents Act, 1970.
    “Mr. Mehta's argument that there is a presumption in favour of the validity of the patent, cannot be accepted”

    •Whether the patent was not at the date of the patent, a manner of new
    manufacture or improvement

    •whether the invention does not involve any inventive step, having regard to
    what was known or used prior to the date of the patent
    Supreme Court – Points highlighted

    Adopting the old device/method to a new purpose, there must be difficulties


    to be overcome, requiring what is called invention, or there must be some
    ingenuity in the mode of making the adoption

    "Whether the alleged discovery lies so much out of the Track of what was
    known before as not naturally to suggest itself to a person thinking on the
    subject, it must not be the obvious or natural suggestion of what was
    previously known.

    "Was it for practical purposes obvious to a skilled worker, in the field


    concerned, in the state of knowledge existing at the date of the patent to be
    found in the literature then available to him, that he would or should make
    the invention the subject of the claim concerned ?"
    Supreme Court – Points highlighted

    Mere application of an old contrivance in the old way to an analogous


    subject, without any novelty or invention in the mode of applying such old
    contrivance to the new purpose, is not a valid subject-matter of a patent

    Read the description first and then the claims

    Specification and the claims must be looked at and construed together

    You might also like