Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 91 views

    Case Study On Patents

    Uploaded by

    Amit Srivastava
    This document summarizes a patent case from the Supreme Court of India between Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam and Hindustan Metal Industries regarding a patent for "Means for holding utensils for turning purposes" granted in 1953. The key issues before the Supreme Court were whether the patented invention was a new manufacture or improvement, and whether it involved an inventive step. The Supreme Court highlighted that for a patented adaptation of an old device to a new purpose to be valid, it must involve difficulties to be overcome through invention or ingenuity, and not be an obvious suggestion based on prior knowledge. Mere application of an old contrivance in an analogous way without novelty is not a valid patent subject.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Study On Patents

    Uploaded by

    Amit Srivastava
    91 views8 pages
    This document summarizes a patent case from the Supreme Court of India between Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam and Hindustan Metal Industries regarding a patent for "Means for holding utensils for turning purposes" granted in 1953. The key issues before the Supreme Court were whether the patented invention was a new manufacture or improvement, and whether it involved an inventive step. The Supreme Court highlighted that for a patented adaptation of an old device to a new purpose to be valid, it must involve difficulties to be overcome through invention or ingenuity, and not be an obvious suggestion based on prior knowledge. Mere application of an old contrivance in an analogous way without novelty is not a valid patent subject.

    Original Description:

    patent

    Original Title

    22054782 Case Study on Patents

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a patent case from the Supreme Court of India between Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam and Hindustan Metal Industries regarding a patent for "Means for holding utensils for turning purposes" granted in 1953. The key issues before the Supreme Court were whether the patented invention was a new manufacture or improvement, and whether it involved an inventive step. The Supreme Court highlighted that for a patented adaptation of an old device to a new purpose to be valid, it must involve difficulties to be overcome through invention or ingenuity, and not be an obvious suggestion based on prior knowledge. Mere application of an old contrivance in an analogous way without novelty is not a valid patent subject.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    91 views8 pages

    Case Study On Patents

    Uploaded by

    Amit Srivastava
    This document summarizes a patent case from the Supreme Court of India between Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam and Hindustan Metal Industries regarding a patent for "Means for holding utensils for turning purposes" granted in 1953. The key issues before the Supreme Court were whether the patented invention was a new manufacture or improvement, and whether it involved an inventive step. The Supreme Court highlighted that for a patented adaptation of an old device to a new purpose to be valid, it must involve difficulties to be overcome through invention or ingenuity, and not be an obvious suggestion based on prior knowledge. Mere application of an old contrivance in an analogous way without novelty is not a valid patent subject.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 8

    Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam

    Vs.

    Hindustan Metal Industries

    Submitted by: Submitted to:


    Amit Kumar Srivastava Mr. Kaushlesh Pandey
    A8111113040
    B.A.,LL.B
    2013-2018
    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