Zopa working with revenue model and business model
a comprehensive solved case study on Revlon Inc
Full description
Bata Case incompo
Full description
Case Study on Linux for FY BscIT Sem-1 Literature Review Linux Milestone Introduction Open Source Linux Linux Operating System Virtual Memory, Linux Today Features of Linux Why …Full description
case studies of consumerism and about consumer courtsFull description
A complete case study on Pepsi Co international - A company Analysis
a question on motivation
Memorial HospitalFull description
Indian grid system is a synchronized system and presently operating as National Grid. India has five provincial grids altogether as per geological region which covers the distinct states electrical power framework to be specific these are Northern Gr
Complete Analysis of progress of Balaji TelifilmsFull description
a case study on vespas relaunchFull description
craft and traditionalFull description
About the monopoly of Debeers in diamond marketFull description
Full description
Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam Vs. Hindustan Metal Industries
By Kartik Puttaiah Brain League IP Services
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 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 c entering 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 guaranteed by the grant 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 m aking 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
