Plaintiff Memorial - Iit Madras Ip Moot

6th SURANA & SURANA AND SHAASTRA IIT MADRAS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT
COMPETITION, 2022-2023
TEAM CODE: TC016
bcaa
6TH SURANA & SURANA AND SHAASTRA IIT MADRAS,
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COMPETITION, 2022-2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HILED
IN THE MATTER OF
SHRADDA BHAMBANI……………………………………. PLAINTIFF
Versus
BROESHIM(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED……………… DEFENDANT
Commercial Suit No. 6 of 2023
THE TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

MEMORIAL for PLAINTIFF 1|Page
THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................3
THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.............................................................................4
THE STATEMENT OF FACTS..............................................................................................5
THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES.............................................................................................6
THE SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS.......................................................................................7
THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.........................................................................................8
I. WHETHER BROESHIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED HAS INFRINGED
PATENT RIGHTS OF SHRADDA BHAMBANI..............................................................8
A. THAT THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 104 OF THE
PATENTS ACT ARE FULFILLED....................................................................................8
II. WHETHER BROESHIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED HAS INFRINGED
PATENT RIGHTS OF SHRADDA BHAMBANI?..........................................................10
A. THE SAID PATENT IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 64(1)(a)(e) & (f) OF
THE ACT..........................................................................................................................10
B. IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SECTION 64(1)(D) OF THE ACT........................16
III. WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF HAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT
DISCLOSURE OF HER PATENT?.................................................................................19
A. THE FIRST CLAIM MADE MEETS THE SUFFICIENCY REQUIREMENT......19
B. THE CLAIMS FILED CAN BE MODIFIED TO INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION...............................................................................................................20
THE PRAYER........................................................................................................................22

THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
AGC Flat Glass Europe SA v. Anand Mahajan and Ors. (2009) ILR 4 Delhi 256).................22

Ajay Industrial Corporation v. Shiro Kanao of Ibaraki City 1983 SCC ONLINE DEL 12.....18
Ajay Industrial Corporation… v. Shiro Kanao of Ibaraki City. 1983 PTC 24.........................10
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Ace Technologies Corporation 2019 SCC
ONLINE DEL 9123..............................................................................................................17
Fabcon Corporation Inc. v. Industrial Engineering Corporation, AIR 1987 All. 33..................9
FDC v Sanjeev Khandelwal and Ors (OA/15/2009/PT/MUM................................................21
Hind Mosaic And Cement Works Another v. Shree Sahjanand Trading Corporation 2008 PTC
37 12.....................................................................................................................................13
Is Phase-Iv vs Ctr Manufacturing Industries ... on 6 June, 2011.............................................10
J. Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd v. Kesar Medicaments 2008 SCC ONLINE DEL 25......................18
Nippon A&L Inc. Vs. The Controller Of Patents [C.A.(Comm.Ipd-Pat) 11/2022...................22
Novartis Ag And Another Plaintiffs v. Natco Pharma Limited 2021 SCC ONLINE DEL 534
........................................................................................................................................13, 15
Novartis Ag v. Natco Pharma Limited 2021 SCC ONLINE DEL 534....................................18
Polymer Corporation’s Patent [1972] RPC 3...........................................................................22
Press Metal Corporation Limited v. Noshir Sorabji Pochkhanawalla, 1982 PTC 259 (Bom). 20
Prism Cement Ltd. v. The Controller of Patents and Designs (IPAB) OA/7/2016/PT/MU.....22
Rajeev Indravadan Modi And Ors. vs Instance Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (2001) 3 GLR 201.....10
S.R. Batliboi & Co. v. M/s. V.S. Khandwala & Co. (AIR 1981 Bom 177...............................15
Sandeep Jaidka v. Mukesh Mittal 2014 SCC ONLINE DEL 297............................................18
Shogun Organics Ltd. v. Gaur Hari Guc 2019 SCC ONLINE DEL 9653...............................12
Spc Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd v Ameya Laboratories Ltd. 2017 SCC ONLINE HYD 269...........10
Strix Limited v. Maharaja Appliances Limited 2010 RCR CIVIL 8 312.................................12
Sulphur Mills Limited v. Dharamraj Crop Guard Limited (2021) 87 PTC 567......................23

Tata Global Beverages Limited v Hindustan Unilever Limited (TRA/1/2007/PT/MUM)......21
Tvs Motor Company Li. v. Bajaj Auto Limited 2009 CTC 3 17.............................................13
STATUTES
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908...................................................................................................6
The Patents Act, 1970..............................................................................................................10
FOREIGN CASES
British Celanse Ltd. V Courtaulds Ltd (52) RFC 17................................................................19
BOOKS
Hal BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, ST. PAUL, MINN. WEST PUBLISHING CO. 1968
..................................................................................................................................................20
Halsbury, 3rd edn. Vol 29 p. 66 para 138.................................................................................. 22
THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE HON’BLE HIGH

COURT OF HILED HAS BEEN INVOKED UNDER SECTION 20 1 OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
THE SUIT FOR PATENTS INFRINGEMENT IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER SECTION
1042 OF THE PATENTS ACT, 1970.
THE STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND
1
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 20
2
The Patents Act, 1970, Section 104

1) The Defendant’s parent company Broeshim BV is a leading manufacturer of tyres with

headquarters at the Netherlands. They manufacture various kinds of tyres and has an R&D
driven company development plan.
2) The Defendant i.e., Broeshim (India) Private Limited is a subsidiary of the Broeshim BV and
was incorporated in 1998 The Defendant has introduced various path breaking products in the
Indian tyre industry which became synonymous within the tyre industry. From 2017, the
defendant is selling tyres with a sensor to collect data and a puncture proof tyre material. The
product is also sold in India since January 2021.
3) The Defendant’s parent company holds 600+ patents for its technology throughout the world.
Neither the Defendant’s parent company nor the Defendant holds any filed, pending or
granted patents in India.
4) The Plaintiff is a civil engineer, with around 200 patents to her name in various fields of
innovation and filed a patent in India for the technology titled “Sensor Embedded Airless
Wheel Structure Technology” in March 2021. The patent claims a tyre with an embedded
chip to collect data and a novel puncture proof mechanism that optimizes rolling
resistance, speed, control, and noise. The patent that was filed in an expedited mode, was
granted on 3rd January 2023 - Patent No: 23x4281.
ISSUE
5) In January 2023 the Plaintiffs instituted infringement proceedings against the Defendant
before the Hon’ble High Court of Hiled alleging infringement of their patent rights subsisting
in “Sensor Embedded Airless Wheel Structure Technology”. The suit was numbered as
Commercial Suit No. 6 of 2023.
6) The Plaintiff filed the suit based on her intellectual property rights accruing from Patent No.
23x4281, which was filed before the Indian Patent Office on 02/03/2022. The said patent was
published in the Register of Patents on 03/01/2023.
7) The cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court of Hiled, with
jurisdiction akin to that of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, India where the Plaintiff is
residing and where the Plaintiff have filed for the patent application before the Hiled Patent
office in March 2021. The Hiled Patent Office granted by the patent office in January 2023.
THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES

THE PETITIONERS VERY RESPECTFULLY PUT FORTH TO THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT, THE FOLLOWING QUERIES:
ISSUE-I
WHETHER THE SUIT FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT IS

MAINTANABLE?
ISSUE-II
WHTHER BROESHIM INDIA PVT LIMITED HAS VIOLETED THE PATENT
RIGHT OF SHRADDA BHAMBANI?
ISSUE-III
WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF HAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT DISCLOSURE OF

HER PATENT?
THE SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

ISSUE-I: WHETHER THE PRESENT SUIT FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH
COURT IS MAINTANABLE?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the High Court has absolute Jurisdiction
over the current commercial suit and thus the suit is maintainable in the respected court of
law. Because the conditions mentioned under section 104 of the Patents Act are met by the
plaintiff’s case. There is also a prima facie case of the plaintiff against the defendant and thus
the current suit is maintainable in eyes of law.
ISSUE-II: WHTHER BROESHIM INDIA PVT LIMITED HAS INFRINGED THE
PATENT RIGHT OF SHRADDA BHAMBANI?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that Broeshim India Pvt. Ltd. has not
infringed patent rights of the Shradda Bhambani. The claimed invention was already in public
use before it got patented, it does not involve any new inventive step thus it is devoid of
novelty and lastly that the claimed invention of the Plaintiff is also, a mere re-arrangement of
known devices functioning in a known manner.
ISSUE-III: WHTHER SUFFICIEMT DISLOSURE HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE

PATENT HOLER?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the plaintiff has not provided sufficient
disclosure for her patent because firstly thay they are not meeting disclosure standards as per
section 10(4) of the Act. And lastly it is also contended that the plaintiff is a patent troll who
does not commercialize any of her patents, and who has filed this suit with the sole intention
of harassing and arm twisting the Defendant and to gain monetary benefit.
THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER BROESHIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED HAS INFRINGED PATENT
RIGHTS OF SHRADDA BHAMBANI?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the High Court has absolute Jurisdiction
over the current commercial suit and thus the suit is maintainable in the respected court of
law. Because the conditions mentioned under section 104 of the Patents Act are met by the
plaintiff’s case. There is also a prima facie case of the plaintiff against the defendant and thus
the current suit is maintainable in eyes of law.
A. THAT THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 104 OF THE PATENTS ACT
ARE FULFILLED.
1. It Is further submitted that section 104 of the Act mentions about the jurisdiction and
clearly states that “the suit for infringement of a patent shall not be instituted in any court
inferior to a district court having jurisdiction to try the suit and provided that where a
counter-claim for revocation of the patent is made by the defendant, the suit, along with
the counter-claim, shall be transferred to the High Court for decision3.
2. The statutory provisions provides that a suit for infringement of a patent shall not be filed
below the district court and in case a counter claim for revocation of the patent has been
filed by the defendant then such suit shall be tried by the high court4.
3. It is further submitted that when the defendants have made any counter-claim for
revocation of the plaintiffs' patent and their intention of counter claim is clear to file a suit
for revocation of the patent of the plaintiffs then the proviso to Section 104 can be brought
into play5.
4. It is contended that it is has been upheld though a suit for declaration under section 105 or
for any relief under section 106 has to be instituted in the District Court but where a
3
The Patents Act, 1970, Section 104
4
Fabcon Corporation Inc. v. Industrial Engineering Corporation, AIR 1987 All. 338
5
Rajeev Indravadan Modi And Ors. vs Instance Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (2001) 3 GLR 2010
MEMORIAL for PLAINTIFF 10 | P a g e

counter-claim for revocation is made by the defendant, the suit along with counter claim
has to be transferred to the High Court for decision. The Legislature has specifically
provided that once counter claim is made by the defendant for revocation of patent the suit
shall be transferred to the High Court6.
5. It is further submitted that an action for patent infringement would lie within the
jurisdiction of the high court when the defendant has filed the counter claim for the
revocation of the patent7.
6. It is also contended that a high court has absolute jurisdiction to hear a commercial suit
filed before it for the patent infringement when a counter claim for revocation of the
concerned patent has been filed by the defendant as per section 104 of the patents act8.
7. It is submitted that it has been very clearly clarified in the clarifications that a counter
claim has been filed by the Defendant seeking revocation of the Plaintiff's 9. Thus, it
becomes very clear that the defendant has made a counterclaim in the present suit
8. It is submitted that the Defendant has contended that the Plaintiffs’ claimed invention apart
from being what is already patented, is also already in public use, which are grounds for
revocation of a granted patent under the patents act10.
9. It is apparent form the factual matrix and clarifications released that the defendant has
made a counterclaim for the revocation of a patent in the present case which is a condition
provided under section 104 of the patents act for a suit to be heard in the High Court.
10. Thus, by the application of existing laws to the factual matrix of the present case it can be
concluded that the present suit is maintainable before the hon’ble high court as the
6
Is Phase-Iv vs Ctr Manufacturing Industries ... on 6 June, 2011
7
Ajay Industrial Corporation… v. Shiro Kanao of Ibaraki City. 1983 PTC 245
8
Spc Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd v Ameya Laboratories Ltd. 2017 SCC ONLINE HYD 269
9
Clarifications, No.4
10
Moot Preposition, Page-2, Para-7

conditions mentioned under 104 of the patents act are fulfilled for the suit to be heard in
the high court.
II. WHETHER BROESHIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED HAS INFRINGED PATENT
RIGHTS OF SHRADDA BHAMBANI?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the Broeshim India Private Limited has
infringed the patents rights of the plaintiff. The patent of the defendant is a new invention
within the meaning of the invention of the section 3 of the patents act 1970 (here and after
referred as the Act). The defendant has no patent on any of such invention. The patent of the
plaintiff is also not violating any of the conditions specified under section 64 of the patents
act.
A. THE SAID PATENT IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 64(1)(a)(e) & (f) OF THE
ACT.
1. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the said patent is violative of the
section 64(1)(a)(e)&(f) of the Act and thus liable to be revoked. 11 It is to be noted that
section 64(1)(a)12 of the Act renders patent liable to be revoked if its subject matter is
claimed in any other patent granted in India, section 64(1)(e) & section 64(1)(f) are
subject to the condition that the said patent should be “novel” and not anticipated by prior
publication. Further it should not be in “public use.” Further the said subsections can be
used as a counterclaim in a suit for patent infringement which is the case of
DEFENDANT’S. It is hereby submitted on behalf of the PLAINTIFF’s that the
contentions by the DEFENDANT is horribly wrong and misplaced both on the ground of
law as well as facts. It will be proved in the upcoming submissions.
11
The Patents Act, 1970, Section 64(1)(a)(e) & (f).
12
The Patents Act, 1970, Section 64(1) (a)

2. The subject matter dealt in section 64(1)(e) & section 64(1)(f) of the Act is of “public
use” and “novelty” respectively. The term public use in the context of Patent law means
that an invention which has been either published or publicly displayed cannot be
patented as such publication or public display leads to lack of novelty 13, whereas if we
talk separately the term novelty tells us that only truly new inventions deserve patent
protection. Novelty means "new compared to prior art"; it states the requirement that, to
be patentable, an invention must somehow be different from all published articles, known
techniques, and marketed products.14
3. The doctrine of public use and novelty is well established in Indian patent law
jurisprudence, the courts have regularly held patents to be valid after testing them against
section 64(1)(e) & section 64(1)(f) of the Act which deals with public use and novelty
respectively and have ordered injunction orders restraining defendants form violating the
patent of the plaintiff.15 It has been held while deciding defendants’ argument of patent
being devoid of novelty as no convincing 16.
4. The patent of the appellant has to be satisfying the condition of novelty before the court
of law17. It has been also upheld that that the patent granted to the plaintiff was not
revoked under section 64(1)(e) & 64(1)(f) of the Act and validity of said patent has been
upheld.18 Further the argument of the defendant that the said product was not novel and
anticipated by prior publication has been set aside when it the patent is novel.19
13
The Patents Act, 1970, Section 64(1
14
Patent Article (hkindia.com)
15
Shogun Organics Ltd. v. Gaur Hari Guc 2019 SCC ONLINE DEL 9653
16
Strix Limited v. Maharaja Appliances Limited 2010 RCR CIVIL 8 3120
17
Tvs Motor Company Li. v. Bajaj Auto Limited 2009 CTC 3 178
18
Hind Mosaic And Cement Works Another v. Shree Sahjanand Trading Corporation 2008 PTC 37 128
19

5. It is hereby shown that the said doctrine of “public use” and “novelty” is well established
in the jurisprudence of patent law, as shown above the courts have regularly used the
same principles to decide upon the merits of the case20.
6. Since then, these same principles are regularly applied by the court, broadly speaking
these principles can be categorized into two major conditions that need to be fulfilled, if
the said patent has to satisfy the twin requirement of possessing novelty and not being in
public use, therefore not liable to be revoked as per section 64(1)(e) & section 64(1)(f) of
the Act21.
7. The said conditions of “public use” and “novelty” can respectively be outlined as (i) an
invention which not been anticipated by publication in any document anywhere in the
world or used in the country or prior claimed in an application for patent in India or
form part of the knowledge, oral or otherwise, available within any local or indigenous
community in India or elsewhere before the date of filing of patent application or date of
priority, that is, the subject matter has not fallen in the public domain. 22 (ii) Novelty
means the newness of the information that is generally unused or unknown and that gives
its owner a competitive advantage in a business field. 23 It must have an inventive step
“inventive step is a test that ensures that the novel feature of an invention is not trivial
and adds a useful technical effect. This could be thought of as ensuring that the invention
is ‘clever’ and adds something to the field of technology.”24
8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case it is contended by the defendant that the
innovation can only be with respect to the finer elements in the working of the tyre,
whereas the overall structure, working and specifications are well established and well
20
Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries AIR 1982 SC 1444
21
22
http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOGuidelinesManuals/1_59_1_15-wo-ga-34- china.pdf
23
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, ST. PAUL, MINN. WEST PUBLISHING CO. 1968
24
https://www.boult.com/patent/what-is-inventive-step/

known. Therefore, while one can claim ownership over a minor improvement or
advancement, the entire design of a tyre cannot be claimed to be an invention in the year
2021 as claimed by the Plaintiff. The Defendant submits that the Plaintiffs’ claimed
invention apart from being what is already patented, is also already in public use, which
are grounds for revocation of a granted patent under section 64(1)(a), (e) and (f) of the
Patents Act, 1970.25
9. It is humbly submitted that the contentions raised by the DEFENDANTs is wrong both on
the grounds of law as well as facts of the present case. Firstly, section 64(1)(a) of the Act
renders a patent to be revoked if its subject matter is disclosed in any other patent granted
in India. It is clear from the facts of the present case that the DEFENDANT does not hold
any filed, pending or granted patent in India.26 They have provided no evidence that any
similar patent or technology already exists in India. Further, the DEFENDENTS have
misread the PLAINTIFF’s patent, the same reads as “Sensor Embedded Airless Wheel
Structure Technology”, the title itself implies that the said patent is with respect to a
technology not the entire structure of the tyre as claimed by the DEFENDANT. Further a
reading of the first claim27 filed by the PLAINTIFF post the grant of the patent suggest
that it is a technology and qualifies as an improvement, not the entire structure as
claimed. It is also complemented by the facts that the patent in question is a novel
puncture-proof tyre mechanism.28 Hence the said patent is not claimed anywhere, and
does not satisfy the requirement laid in the section 64(1)(a) of the Act. Secondly, the
section 64(1)(e) & section 64(1)(f) lay down the twin conditions of Public-use and
25
The Patents Act, 1970, Section 64(1)(a)(e) & (f).
26
27
28

novelty, same would be checked on patent against the contention of the DEFENDANT
based on principles highlighted above.29
10. It is submitted that the burden of proof of prior public use of an invention is on the
defendant who challenges the validity of the patent." The standard of proof required to
establish prior public use is higher than that required to establish novelty or obviousness
of an invention30."
11. Testing the facts of the case against first condition highlighted in the submissions above,
it is submitted that the invention claimed by the PLAINTIFF was not published in any
patent as no proofs with regards to it are given by the DEFENDANT, further if we assume
that the tyres with a sensor and a puncture proof tyre material 31 already sold by them as
the product they think is already available in the market and is publicly used. We would
reach to a conclusion that the former is a tyre with puncture proof material which contains
a sensor and the invention claimed in the patent is a tyre with puncture proof mechanism.
There is difference between Puncture proof material and Puncture proof mechanism,
Former is a hardware object while the latter is a technique, therefore the subject matter in
the patent was not in prior public use. Hence it is submitted that the contention of
responding party is wrong and the patent is not violative of section 64(1)(e) of the Act.
12. Although, there is a difference between subject matter of the patent and the product sold
by the DEFENDANT, the patent infringement is still valid because the responding party
does not hold any patent in India.32 They never objected to grant of the said patent
between the period of its filing i.e 02-03-2021 and date of its publication i.e 03-01-2023
mandated by the patent rules, Further the utility of the product sold by them and the one
29
30
S.R. Batliboi & Co. v. M/s. V.S. Khandwala & Co. (AIR 1981 Bom 177)
31
32

claimed in patent would be same. Patents are granted to the inventor so that they can gain
protection over their creation and its use. In the facts of the present case the PLAINTIFF
got a patent for a sensor embedded puncture proof tyre technology, the DEFENDANT in
the facts of the present case has been selling a tyre which is made of Puncture proof tyre
material and also has a sensor, since they do not hold any patent rights for the said
product in India. Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that their tyre violates the
subject matter of the PLAINTIFF’s patent as utility of both would be same and both has a
sensor & are puncture-proof. In other words, the right to make a product as sold by
DEFENDANT is embedded in the patent granted to the PLAINTIFF, since the former
does not hold any patent rights in India. The said patent is violated.
13. Now testing the invention in the patent against the second33 condition highlighted above,
it is hereby submitted that the said invention is novel and qualifies as an improvement. It
is evident from the facts of the present case that novel puncture proof mechanism claimed
in the patent is designed to optimize rolling resistance, speed, control and noise, which is
a feature distinguishing itself from the previous products already known. Therefore, it is
submitted that the said product involves an inventive step and possesses novelty. It
satisfies the second condition highlighted above and it is not in contravention as per
requirement laid down in section 64(1)(f) of the Act.
14. Finally, after drawing conclusion from the submissions given above. It is hereby humbly
submitted that the contention of the DEFENDANTS is wrong the said patent is not
violative as per the conditions laid down is section 64(1)(a), 64(1)(e) & 64(1)(f) of the
Act. Therefore, they have infringed upon the patent granted to the PLAINTIFF.
33

B. IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SECTION 64(1)(D) OF THE ACT.
1. It is the contention of Defendants that the patent granted to the Plaintiff is a mere re-
arrangement of known devices functioning in a known manner, independent of each
other, performing such function as they may perform individually. It is to be noted that
the said condition is about what cannot be claimed as an invention in a patent, same is
laid down in section 3(f)34 of the Act. If a patent violates the condition laid down in the
said section then it is liable to be revoked as per section 64(1)(d)35 of the Act.
2. The condition laid down in section 3(f) of the Act is a well-established doctrine in Indian
Patent law jurisprudence. It is a very popular defense usually taken up the Defendants in a
patent infringement suit, which is also the case in present scenario. The courts have
regularly applied the said section to check the validity of granted patent, and it has at
regular time intervals upheld the validity of granted patents against the same36
3. It has been held that the patent is valid as per section 3(f) of the patents act thus it was
held that the patent was eligible for protection and the defendants in the case was held
liable to be infringing the same.37 The court has upheld the validity of the patent granted
in a similar way, and granted injunction to the plaintiff to stop defendants from infringing
upon the said patent. Also a writ petition to revoke the granted patent was rejected by the
madras high-court on the similar ground of patent being valid as per section 3(f) of the
Act 38. Further the same view has been upheld many times. 39 The court found patent to be
valid in a similar manner, In the case of Novartis Ag v. Natco Pharma Limited 40 court
held patent to be valid on counterclaim raised by the defendant and it subsequently held
34
The Patents Act, 1970, Section 64(1)(f)
35
The Patents Act, 1970, Section 64(1)(d)
36
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Ace Technologies Corporation 2019 SCC ONLINE DEL 9123
37
J. Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd v. Kesar Medicaments 2008 SCC ONLINE DEL 255
38
of K. Manivannan v. The Chairman, Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai & Others 2018 CTC 1
715
39
Ajay Industrial Corporation v. Shiro Kanao of Ibaraki City 1983 SCC ONLINE DEL 126
40
Novartis Ag v. Natco Pharma Limited 2021 SCC ONLINE DEL 5340

that defendants in the case were violating the said patent and similarly in the case of
Sandeep Jaidka v. Mukesh Mittal41 court held plaintiffs’ device was infringing the patent
granted to plaintiff.
4. Having shown above that the courts have applied the test laid down in section 3(f) at
regular intervals in deciding judgements, the said test was first laid down in landmark
British judgement of British Celanse Ltd. V Courtaulds Ltd42, the test applied in section
3(f) of the Act has been explained very clearly, wherein Lord Tomlin laid down the law
as follows: “A mere juxtaposition of known devices in which each device functions
independently is not considered patentable. It is accepted as sound law that merely
placing, side-by-side, old integers so that each integer performs its function
independently of the other/s, is not a patentable combination.” This same test will be
applied in facts of the present case to refute the contention made by the plaintiff.
5. Now coming to the facts of the present case, it is alleged by the Defendants that the
invention in the said patent is a mere rearrangement of already known devices functioning
in a known manner as they would have performed individually. They further allege that
the invention claimed in nothing is but a mere rearrangement of known machines
connected to achieve the desired output, where the independent components work in the
same way in the combination also resulting in mere aggregation of known devices43.
6. It is hereby humbly submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs that the Defendant is wrong both
on ground of law as well as facts. Information from the claim filed by the Plaintiffs shows
that the said invention in the patent would have six separate chambers namely
(2A,2B,2C,2D,2E&2F) typically & essentially designed to cushion air within
themselvesA sensor chip is also embedded below the said compartments to collect data. It
41
Sandeep Jaidka v. Mukesh Mittal 2014 SCC ONLINE DEL 2970
42
British Celanse Ltd. V Courtaulds Ltd (52) RFC 171
43

is submitted that the said compartments in the tyre are an essential part of the novel
puncture proof mechanism which the said patent is trying to claim 44. The said
compartments would function like six separate chambers filled with air, even if one of the
chambers bursts out the other remaining five chambers would facilitate the functioning of
entire wheel and will make sure that the vehicle does not stop, the said mechanism will
also make sure that the entire air from the tyre is stopped from leaking in case of a
puncture, only the air from punctured compartment goes out. Therefore, the said
compartments although maybe already known but they are giving a different output in the
case at hand, which is by forming the main structure of the novel puncture-proof claimed
in the patent. Further the said compartments have a sensor chip embedded, whose role
would be to collect data from each compartment separately, giving the already known
product which is sensor chip here, a different end use although they are used in plurality 45.
Hence the invention in the said patent in now a mere re-arrangement of already known
devices functioning in a known manner, giving a known result.
7. Finally, after drawing conclusion from the arguments stated above, it is hereby submitted
that the said invention in the said patent does not violate condition as per section 3(f) 46 of
the Act. It is not liable to be revoked as per section 64(1)(d) 47 of the Act. The Defendants
are wrong in their contentions therefore they have violated the patent granted to the
Plaintiff.
44
45
46
The Patents Act, 1970, Section 3(f)
47
The Patents Act, 1970, Section 64(1)(d)

III. WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF HAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT DISCLOSURE OF
HER PATENT?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the first claim filed meets the
sufficiency of disclosure requirements. The detailed description provided by the Plaintiff in
their first claim is aptly meeting the legal requirements set under sec 10(4) of the Indian
Patents Act.
A. THE FIRST CLAIM MADE MEETS THE SUFFICIENCY REQUIREMENT
1. In the present case, the Plaintiffs have in their first claim filed successfully described and
defined one way of working the invention. The description of the connectors, the sensor
placement, the circuit board mechanism etc. enable a Person having Ordinary Skill in the
Art or Person Skilled in the Art to perform and make use of it.48
2. Further, the description is termed to be sufficient if a) complete specification describes an
‘embodiment’ of the invention claimed in each of the claims and that description must be
sufficient to enable those in the industry concerned to carry it into effect ‘without making
further inventions’ and b) that the description must be fair i.e. must not be unnecessarily
difficult to follow.49 The description provided by the Plaintiff in the first claim is succinct
and enables those in the industry to follow it without any difficulty. 50 It does not need any
further explanations and clarifications to enable its working in practice.
3. The requirement is met even if one method is described and it need not define every
conceivable way of operating the invention. 51 Although there in an obligation to submit
the best method, the claims need not be representative of the best method. 52 The Plaintiff
have submitted at least one method of operating the invention even though it may not
48
Press Metal Corporation Limited v. Noshir Sorabji Pochkhanawalla, 1982 PTC 259 (Bom).
49
Halsbury, 3rd edn. Vol 29 p. 66 para 138.
50
Moot proposition, para 12.
51
Tata Global Beverages Limited v Hindustan Unilever Limited (TRA/1/2007/PT/MUM).
52
FDC v Sanjeev Khandelwal and Ors (OA/15/2009/PT/MUM)

necessarily be the best method since it is only the first claim filed after the grant of patent.
After conducting trials and experimentation with the actual working and function of the
tire model at the time of manufacture, the results can be added in the claims to further
enhance the description of the patent.
4. Hence, it is most humbly submitted that the Plaintiff has fulfilled the disclosure
requirements under section 10(4) of the Indian Patent Act. The first claim fulfills the
enablement requirement and describes the method of implementation of the patent by an
average skilled person.
B. THE CLAIMS FILED CAN BE MODIFIED TO INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION
1. The Defendants have alleged insufficiency of disclosure under sec 64(1)(m) solely on the
basis of the first claim filed by the Plaintiff after grant of the patent. 53 They have made
premature assumptions with regards to the disclosure in the patent granted.
2. Firstly, the claim made after the grant of patent is valid to because amendments to patent
specifications or claims must be construed more liberally than narrowly. 54 The claim filed
after the grant of patent is valid as it does not add any new claims and merely clarifies or
elaborates on the existing claims. 55 The claim filed in the present case post grant is hence
valid as it does not expand the scope of invention and merely specifies the working and
technology in the Sensor Embedded Airless Wheel technology.
3. Secondly, although the claim filed meets the sufficiency of disclosure requirement under
sec 10(4), a post grant amendment to the claims to clarify the working of the invention
during a patent infringement suit.56 The claim amendments which turn ambiguous patents
53
Moot Proposition, Para 13.
54
Nippon A&L Inc. Vs. The Controller Of Patents [C.A.(Comm.Ipd-Pat) 11/2022]
55
Prism Cement Ltd. v. The Controller of Patents and Designs (IPAB) OA/7/2016/PT/MUM
56
AGC Flat Glass Europe SA v. Anand Mahajan and Ors. (2009) ILR 4 Delhi 256).

into clearer and definitive patents ought to be permitted. 57 Thus the objections raised by
the defendants regarding the unambiguity in the patent can be easily corrected during the
ongoing infringement suit if the Hon’ble court agrees to the validity of such objections.
4. Finally, the claim amendments which reduce or narrow down the scope of claims in the
invention of the Patent is allowed provided it does not conflict with the already existing
claims made in the invention.58 Hence the defendant’s claim of insufficiency of disclosure
in the patent and their reasons stated for the same cannot be a ground for revocation of the
patent. Such objections raised about the usage of wide use of term can be easily corrected
by amendment pending trial, if the need may so arise.
5. Hence, the Plaintiff has fulfilled all the criteria for sufficiency of disclosure and their
patent rights cannot be revoked on grounds so claimed by the Defendant.
57
Polymer Corporation’s Patent [1972] RPC 39
58
Sulphur Mills Limited v. Dharamraj Crop Guard Limited (2021) 87 PTC 567

THE PRAYER
THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED, REASONS GIVEN AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE PLAINTIFF
HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT THE HON’BLE COURT MAYBE PLEASED TO
ADJUDGE AND DECLARE:
1. THAT THE PRESENT SUIT FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT IS
MAINTAINABLE.
2. THAT THE BROESHIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED HAS INFRINGED PATENT
RIGHTS OF SHRADDA BHAMBANI.
3. THAT SUFFICIENT DISCLOSURE HAS BEEN PROVIDED THE PLAINTIFF FOR
HER PATENT.
4. THAT INTERIM INJUNCTIN BE GRANTED RESTRAIANING DEFEDNANT
FROM USING PLAINTIFF’S PATENT.
5. THAT MONETARY DAMAGES BE GRANTED TO PLAINTIFF.
AND THE COURT MAY GRANT ANY OTHER ORDER AS IT DEEMS FIT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE. ALL OF WHICH IS
MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sd/-
COUNSELS FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff Memorial - Iit Madras Ip Moot

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiff Memorial - Iit Madras Ip Moot

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiff Memorial - Iit Madras Ip Moot

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6th SURANA & SURANA AND SHAASTRA IIT MADRAS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT

TEAM CODE: TC016

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HILED

SHRADDA BHAMBANI……………………………………. PLAINTIFF

BROESHIM(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED……………… DEFENDANT

Commercial Suit No. 6 of 2023

THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................3

THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.............................................................................4

THE STATEMENT OF FACTS..............................................................................................5

THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES.............................................................................................6

THE SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS.......................................................................................7

THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.........................................................................................8

I. WHETHER BROESHIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED HAS INFRINGED

PATENT RIGHTS OF SHRADDA BHAMBANI..............................................................8

A. THAT THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 104 OF THE

PATENTS ACT ARE FULFILLED....................................................................................8

II. WHETHER BROESHIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED HAS INFRINGED

PATENT RIGHTS OF SHRADDA BHAMBANI?..........................................................10

A. THE SAID PATENT IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 64(1)(a)(e) & (f) OF

B. IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SECTION 64(1)(D) OF THE ACT........................16

III. WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF HAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT

DISCLOSURE OF HER PATENT?.................................................................................19

A. THE FIRST CLAIM MADE MEETS THE SUFFICIENCY REQUIREMENT......19

B. THE CLAIMS FILED CAN BE MODIFIED TO INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL

MEMORIAL for PLAINTIFF 2|Page

THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

MEMORIAL for PLAINTIFF 3|Page

Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Ace Technologies Corporation 2019 SCC

ONLINE DEL 9123..............................................................................................................17

FDC v Sanjeev Khandelwal and Ors (OA/15/2009/PT/MUM................................................21

Is Phase-Iv vs Ctr Manufacturing Industries ... on 6 June, 2011.............................................10

Nippon A&L Inc. Vs. The Controller Of Patents [C.A.(Comm.Ipd-Pat) 11/2022...................22

Novartis Ag v. Natco Pharma Limited 2021 SCC ONLINE DEL 534....................................18

Polymer Corporation’s Patent [1972] RPC 3...........................................................................22

Sandeep Jaidka v. Mukesh Mittal 2014 SCC ONLINE DEL 297............................................18

Strix Limited v. Maharaja Appliances Limited 2010 RCR CIVIL 8 312.................................12

MEMORIAL for PLAINTIFF 4|Page

Tata Global Beverages Limited v Hindustan Unilever Limited (TRA/1/2007/PT/MUM)......21

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908...................................................................................................6

The Patents Act, 1970..............................................................................................................10

British Celanse Ltd. V Courtaulds Ltd (52) RFC 17................................................................19

Halsbury, 3rd edn. Vol 29 p. 66 para 138.................................................................................. 22

THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

MEMORIAL for PLAINTIFF 5|Page

IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE HON’BLE HIGH

THE STATEMENT OF FACTS

MEMORIAL for PLAINTIFF 6|Page

1) The Defendant’s parent company Broeshim BV is a leading manufacturer of tyres with

THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES

MEMORIAL for PLAINTIFF 7|Page

THE PETITIONERS VERY RESPECTFULLY PUT FORTH TO THE HON’BLE

WHETHER THE SUIT FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT IS

WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF HAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT DISCLOSURE OF

THE SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

MEMORIAL for PLAINTIFF 8|Page

the current suit is maintainable in eyes of law.