BISHWANATH PRASAD RADHEY SHYAM V. HINDUSTAN METAL INDUSTRIES AIR 1982 SC 1444
FACTS
- Hindustan Metal Industries (Plaintiff) is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing brass and German silver utensils at Mirzapur.
- Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam (Defendant) is a concern carrying on the business of manufacturing dishes and utensils in Mirzapur.
- The old method of manufacturing utensils, particularly shallow dishes, was to turn scrap and polish them on some sort of headstock without a tailstock, the utensils either being fixed to the headstock by thermoplastic cement or held in the jaws of a chuck fixed to the head-stock. This system was, however, fraught with risk to the workers inasmuch as the utensils used to fly off from the headstock.
- To introduce improvement, convenience speed, safety and better finish plaintiff invented a device and method for the manufacture of utensils and got the alleged invention patented under the Indian Patent and Designs Act, 1911.
- The defendant started using plaintiff’s patented method for manufacturing of dishes, against which the plaintiff filed the case of infringement.
- The defendant filed a counter-claim, praying for revocation of the patent on the grounds that the alleged invention did not involve any inventive step and has no utility.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
- High court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. Plaintiff appeal before the division bench of the High court. Appellate bench concluded that the method patented did involve an inventive step, thus, allowed the appeal. Dissatisfied with the holding defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
- Whether Plaintiff’s invention does involve an inventive step, regards to what was known or used prior to the date of the patent and has utility?
HELD
- The fundamental principle of Patent Law is that a patent is granted only for an invention which must be new and useful. It is essential for the validity of a patent that it must be the inventor's own discovery as opposed to mere verification of what was, already known before the date of the patent.
- It is important that in order to be patentable an improvement on something known before or a combination of different matters already known, should be something more than a mere workshop improvement; and must independently satisfy the test of invention or an 'inventive step'. The improvement or the combination must produce a new result, or a new article or a better or cheaper article than before.
- The subject of the invention was known for decades for the traditional purpose of scraping and turning utensils, with a slight change in the mode of application. The patented invention was not a manner of new manufacture or improvement, nor did it involve any inventive step having regard to what was known or used prior to the date of patent. The slight modification in the patented invention would have been obvious to any skilled worker in the field based on knowledge existing at the date of patent.
- The patented machine was neither a manner of new manufacture or novel improvement, nor did it involve any inventive step, having regard to what was publicly known or used at the date of the patent