Back

CITATION:

 1986 AIR 712                         1986 SCR (1) 120

 1986 SCC (1) 642      1986 SCALE (1)74

 

 

ACT:

- When liable to be revoked - Invention being publicly known

- Requirement of - When satisfied - Emulsification - Whether

invention -   Herbicide Formulations    containing   active

ingredient 'Butachlor'     - Whether   can be    enfolded  in

specification relating to a Patent Product.

 

 

 

HEADNOTE:

respondent on the ground that its      inventions entitled

"Phytotoxic Compositions" and "Grass Selective Herbicide

Compositions" duly patented containing the active ingredient

"Butachlor" was   infringed by   the      defendant-respondent

marketing "Delchor-50"            a formulation of "Butachlor" which

was alleged to be covered by the plaintiff's      Patent No.

125381. In the written statement, the defendant-respondent

claimed that the patents were liable      to be revoked under

s.64(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g),           (h), (i), (j), (k),

(l), and (m) of the Patents Act, 1970. The suit was decreed

by the   trial Court, but was dismissed by the appellate

court.

^

on the   ground that the subject of any claim of the complete

specification is not an invention within the meaning of the

Act. Under sec. 64(e), a patent may   be revoked if the

invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete

specification is not new, having regard to what was publicly

known or publicly used in India before the date of  the

claim, etc. Under sec. 64(1)(f), a patent may be revoked if

the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete

specification is obvious or does not involve any inventive

step having regard to    what was publicly known or publicly

used in India or what was published in India before   the

priority date of the claim. [128 G-H; 129 A]

121

known as used in clauses (e)   and (f) of sec. 64(1), it is

not necessary, that it should be widely used to       the

knowledge of  the consumer public. It is sufficient if it is

known to the persons who are engaged in the pursuit of the

knowledge of the patented product or process either as men

of science or men of commerce or consumers. [129 D-E]

discovered, even prior to 1968 as a Herbicide possessing the

property of non-toxic effect on rice.    The formula for the

Herbicide was published in the report of the International

Rice Research Institute for the year     1968 and its common

name Butachlor was also mentioned in the report of   the

International Rice Research Institute for the year 1969. No

one patented the invention Butachlor and it was the property

of the population of the world. Before Butachlor or for that

matter any Herbicide could be used for killing weeds, it had

to be converted into an emulsion by dissolving it in a

suitable solvent   and    by mixing the solution with an

emulsifying agent. Emulsification is a well-known process

and is no one's discovery. Neither Butachlor nor the process

of Emulsification was    capable            of being claimed by   the

plaintiffs as their exclusive property. [128 C-E]

were admittedly            not secrets and they    were ordinary market

products. From the beginning to the end, there was no secret

and there   was no   invention by   the plaintiffs.          The

ingredients, the active ingredients the solvent and       the

emulsifier, were known; the process was known, the product

was known and the use was known. The plaintiffs were merely

camouflaging a  substance whose   discovery was   known

throughout the   world and trying to enfold it in their

specification relating      to Patent Number 125381. The patent

is, therefore, liable to be revoked. [129 F-G; 130 A]