Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Memorial RG08 R
Memorial RG08 R
Most respectfully submitted before the Honble Judges of the Supreme Court of Aryavarta
RG08_R
T AB LE OF CO NTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATION ........................................................................................................ III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... V
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................. IX
STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................ X
ISSUES RAISED ..................................................................................................................... XIV
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS ..................................................................................................... XV
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ........................................................................................................... 1
I.
B.
II.
THAT VINSHUK, AKSMIT IMPEX AND HUN SHUI ARE NOT LIABLE
B.
THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE NEITHER LIABLE FOR DIRECT NOR FOR INDUCED
INFRINGEMENT. ...................................................................................................... 11
III.
BY
THE
TRANSFER
PRICING
OFFICER
(TPO)
WAS
THE
MOST
P a g e |I
RG08_R
A.
B.
P a g e | II
RG08_R
T A B LE O F A B B R E V I A T I O N
ABBREVIATIONS
EXPANSION
Paragraph Number
&
and
AC
Appeal Cases
AIR
Art.
Article
Cal.
Cal. App.
CUP
CIT
DCIT
Del (DB)
EC
European Commission
ECJ
ECR
Ed.
Edition
EEA
EEC
ELT
ENPR
EPC
ETMR
EWHC(PAT)
EU
European Union
f.2d
f.3d
Fed.Cir.
Federal Circuit
F.Supp.
Honble
Honorable
P a g e | III
RG08_R
ILM
IPQ
IPR
INJIPLaw
ITAT
ITR
JIPR
Pg.
Page Number
RAJ
RPC
SC
Supreme Court
SCC
UCLA L.Rev
UNTS
WIPO
WL
Westlaw
v.
Versus
P a g e | IV
RG08_R
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
RULES:
1.
2.
TREATISES:
1.
Convention for the European Patent for the Common Market. (2007).
2.
INDIAN CASES:
1.
Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd. v. ACIT, 2007 Indlaw ITAT 15 ............. 16
2.
3.
4.
Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Co. ltd., (2012) 194 DLT 23 (DB) .................... 5
5.
Mentor Graphics Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, 2007 Indlaw ITAT 21 .................................... 15, 16
6.
Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT, 2014 SCC OnLine ITAT 487 .... 18
7.
Sony Ericsson v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2015) 218 DLT 449 (DB)................ 14
8.
P a g e |V
RG08_R
9.
US CASES:
1.
2.
3.
B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419 (Fed.Cir.1997) ............................ 10
4.
5.
6.
Boston Store of Chicago v. American Graphophone Co., 246 U.S. 8 (1918) .................. 4
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
In Re: Yarn Processing Patent Validity, 472 F. Supp. 180 (S.D. Fla. 1979) ................. 10
13.
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 1351 (2013)......................................... 4
14.
Largan Precision Co, Ltd v. Genius Electronic Optical Co.Ltd., 2014 WL 5358426,
(N.D.Cal.2014) ............................................................................................................... 11
15.
16.
17.
Motion Picture Patents v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917) .................. 1, 4
18.
19.
Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325 (Fed.Cir.2008) ..................... 12
20.
21.
Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark Intern., Inc., 615 F.Supp.2d 575
(E.D.Kent.2010) ............................................................................................................... 2
P a g e | VI
RG08_R
22.
Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 243 U.S. 490 (1917) ........................................... 4
23.
Tessera, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 646 F.3d 1357, 1370 (Fed. Cir.2011)..................... 9
24.
25.
26.
27.
BOOKS REFERRED:
1.
CRAIG ALLEN NARD, THE LAW OF PATENTS (Aspen Publishers, 2d ed. 2011);
2.
P. NARAYANAN, PATENT LAW (Eastern Law House Private Ltd., 4th ed. 2006);
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
ELIZABETH VERKEY, LAW OF PATENTS (Eastern Book Company, 1st Ed. 2005).
8.
9.
P a g e | VII
RG08_R
OTHER AUTHORITIES:
1.
2.
OECD, OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax
Administrations, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ............. 12
3.
Rajya Sabha Secratariat, 227TH Report on the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010,
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development ......................... 5
4.
Secretariat,
EXCEPTIONS
AND
LIMITATIONS
TO
PATENT
RIGHTS:
P a g e | VIII
RG08_R
S T AT E M E NT OF J URI S D I CT I ON
The Respondents have humbly submitted before the Honble Supreme Court of Aryavarta
under Article 136 and Article 139A of the Constitution of Aryavarta (The laws of Aryavarta
are pari materia with laws of India) for Special Leave to Appeals and the transferred writ
petition respectively, reserving the right to challenge the same. The Honble Supreme Court
of Aryavarta has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the instant matters. Article 136 and
Article 139A under which the jurisdiction of the Honble Court is invoked is read as:
Article 136: Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court:
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special
leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter
passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, and sentence or order passed or
made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
P a g e | IX
RG08_R
P a g e |X
RG08_R
of Rs 25,000 , through its authorized outlets under all three existing schemes. Sartri agreed to
pay an amount of 24 Crores in four equal installments payable before the closing of each
financial year and a running royalty of 15% of the price per unit of Riska. Sartri was able
to cement its position in the Aryavartas market.
VINSHUK PVT. LTD. SELLING VISAKA KITS
4. In 2014, Sartri came to understand that some refurbished kits flowing in the market. Vinshuk
Pvt. Ltd., a company of Aryavarta, manufacturer and seller of spare parts of 3-D printers. It
devised a new business strategy and decided to sell refurbished Riska kit at a much cheaper
price than Sartri under brand name of Visaka, after importing pre-used Riska from EU
markets. Vinshuk contacted Hun Shui a company based in Thaikwando, a European
country, which collected the used kits sold under the SCHEME-2 and SCHEME-3. Further
Vinshuk contacted Aksmit Impex, an importing-exporting company of Aryavarta which
bought pre-used Riska kits from Thaikwando and imported these kits into Aryavarta and
supplied to Vinshuk. Vinshuk sold the imported pre-used Riska kits at Rs. 75,000/- per unit
and earned a profit of Rs 20,000/- per unit.
P a g e | XI
RG08_R
P a g e | XII
RG08_R
P a g e | XIII
RG08_R
ISSUES RAISED
I.
II.
III.
WHETHER
THE
COMPARABLE
UNCONTROLLED
PRICE
(CUP)
IV.
P a g e | XIV
RG08_R
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
I.
II.
THAT VINSHUK, AKSMIT IMPEX AND HUN SHUI ARE NOT LIABLE
FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Supreme Court that Hun Shui, Aksmit
Impex and Vinshuk have not infringed the patented product. Firstly, there are no
patentees rights to be enforced as the first sale doctrine is applicable. Secondly, that
the respondents are not liable for Direct or Induced infringement
III.
THAT
CUP
METHOD
USED
BY
THE
TPO
WAS
THE
MOST
P a g e | XV
RG08_R
IV.
P a g e | XVI
RG08_R
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I.
1.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Supreme Court that since the Riska kits were
sold by Melaka, in the EU1, the rights of the patentee, in so far as the kits were concerned,
have been exhausted. The Appellants, thus, are prevented from imposing the conditions
attached to the kits, as they were highly restrictive in nature and amounted to misuse of the
patent rights. As such, the restrictions sought to be imposed on the Respondents, with regard
to the sale of Visaka kits, are perverse.
A.
2.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the conditions imposed on the initial
sales in the EU were highly restrictive in nature; and as such, the conduct of the patent
owners amounts to misuse of the patent rights. The averment made by the Appellants,
contending that the purported sale was a conditional license for mere use, goes against the
common law principle that the power of the patentee to sell and yet under the guise of license
put restrictions were repugnant to the rights which naturally arose from the sale which was
made.2 It is humbly contended that the first sale, involving an ostensible license for mere use,
has to be interpreted as a question of law.3 In the instant case, terming the first sale as a
conditional license for use is a mere play upon words4, intended to limit the application of the
Motion Picture Patents v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917).
Page | 1
RG08_R
It is humbly submitted on behalf of the Respondents that there are strict limitations6 on the
power of the patentee to attach conditions to the use of the patented article.7 In the instant
case, the restrictions, sought to be imposed, were not on the sale of the Riska kits, rather on
the use of the kits after sale.8 Thus, even if the restrictions were brought to the knowledge of
the buyer and accepted by him, the sale would be a complete one 9; and as such, patent rights
cannot be reserved through post-sale restrictions on use of cartridges imposed on its
customers, even when the subsequent purchaser was on notice of the asserted patent rights. 10
The rationale behind this principle is that since the Riska kits had passed to the hands of
the purchaser, they were no longer within the limits of the patent monopoly11; and as such,
the patentee, by attaching conditions, may not enlarge the said monopoly.12
a.
4.
The conditions sought to be imposed have to be tested on the anvil of 140 of the Act13,
which provides for restrictive conditions which may not be imposed on the sale or license of
a patented product. The condition, with regard to the purchase of the cartridges, is in violation
10
Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark Intern., Inc., 615 F.Supp.2d 575 (E.D.Kent.2010).
11
12
13
Page | 2
RG08_R
of 140(1)(a) of the Patents Act14, since it requires the purchaser of Riska kit to acquire the
cartridge from the authorized sellers of Riska only.15 Further, the conditions imposed
require the purchaser of the kits to get the cartridge refurbished from only the authorized
sellers of Riska.
5.
It is humbly contended that merely because the cartridge was essential for the good quality of
printing, as averred by the Appellants, it is not competent for the patent owner to expand the
scope of its monopoly by restricting the use of the patent to materials necessary in its
operation, but which are not part of the patented invention.16 Thus, the patent monopoly of
one invention may no more be enlarged for the exploitation of a monopoly of another, than
for the exploitation of an unpatented article.17
b.
6.
It is further humbly submitted that the restriction imposed on the ability of the customer to
resell the Riska kits is in violation of 10 of the Transfer of Property Act.18 Once the kits
were sold, they were no longer within the limits of the patent monopoly, conferred by the
Patents Act; the kits became the private property of the individual customers.19 The right to
vend was exhausted by a single, unconditional sale, the kits sold being thereby carried outside
the monopoly of the patent law and rendered free of every restriction which the vendor may
14
15
16
17
18
19
Page | 3
RG08_R
attempt to put on it.20 Since Melaka had sold the Riska kits in the EU, its rights, with
regard to controlling the future sales, were exhausted.21 The purpose of the shrink-wrap
contract, thus, was not to grant a conditional license for mere use but to sell the kits and yet
place unreasonable restrictions upon its further alienation.22 This kind of prohibition on resale
is manifestly anti-competitive.23
7.
It is humbly contended, that it was not competent for the patent owner, by notice attached to
the Riska kits, to send their product forth into the channels of trade subject to conditions as
to use.24 Assuming, though not admitting, that the patent owner could attach certain
contractual conditions on use of the patented product, such conditions would be subject to
patent and contract laws as well as the doctrine of patent misuse.25
8. It is humbly submitted that a patentee does not have the right to use the special privilege of a
patent monopoly to secure rights not granted by the patent and that are contrary to public
policy.26 The doctrine of patent misuse, thus, equitable in nature27 is not restricted to a closed
category of wrongful practices, but applies to whatever the form of the suit by the patent
owner may be.28 Since, in the instant case, the patent owner seeks to impose unreasonable
restrictions on post-sale use and re-sale of the kits, the conditions amount to misuse of the
20
21
22
23
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 1351 (2013).
24
Motion Picture Patents v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917).
25
26
Windsurfing International v. Fred Ostermann GmbH, 613 F.Supp. 933 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).
27
Id.
28
Page | 4
RG08_R
Since the first sale, in so far as the Riska kits are concerned, has already been made by
Melaka in the EU, the monopoly of the patentee has been exhausted and, thus, he cannot
control the use or disposition of the article.29 Melaka had the authority to sell the Riska kits
under the three schemes.30 Since the first sale by Melaka to its customers in EU was
authorized, it exhausted the patent owners right to restrict the use of the kits.31 After the first
authorized sale to a purchaser who buys it for use in the ordinary pursuits of life, patent rights
are exhausted32, regardless of the method by which monopoly is sought to be extended.33
10.
It is further humbly submitted that the initial sales were made in the EU does not render the
exhaustion doctrine inapplicable. The aforementioned argument of the Respondents is
supported by the Standing Committee Report of WIPO on the Law of Patents, which, citing
107A of The Patents Act34, puts Aryavarta in the category of countries which follow an
international exhaustion policy.35 The High Court36 relied on the Parliamentary Standing
Committee Report37 as an indicator of the governing principle of international exhaustion in
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Co. ltd., (2012) 194 DLT 23 (DB).
37
Rajya Sabha Secratariat, 227TH Report on the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, Parliamentary Standing
Page | 5
RG08_R
Aryavarta.
11.
According to the language of 107A (b) of the Act38, once the first sale of any product had
been authorized by the patentee, a parallel importer could buy that product from any reseller
and not necessarily from the one that had the express permission of the patentee to resell or
distribute. In other words, such importer does not need to ensure that any of the sellers from
whom he/she buys the goods (whether second, third or fourth) were expressly or impliedly
authorized by the patentee.39 Thus, once Melaka had put the Riska kits in the market, by
way an authorized sale, the patent owner can do little about further acts of commercial
exploitation in the domestic market40, including its import. It is, thus, humbly submitted that
since the patent rights were exhausted after the sale of the kits, the conduct of the
Respondents does not fall within the scope of the patent monopoly.
Thus, it is humbly submitted before the honble Supreme Court that as the post-sale
restrictions on use of cartridge were unenforceable and the restrictions on the resale were
unconscionable, hence, the patent rights of the patentee have been exhausted for the sold
Riska kits.
39
Shamnad Basheer & Mrinalini Kochupillai, TRIPS, Patents and Parallel Imports in India: A Proposal for
Amendment, 2 IJIPL 63 (2009).
40
Page | 6
RG08_R
II.
THAT VINSHUK, AKSMIT IMPEX AND HUN SHUI ARE NOT LIABLE FOR
PATENT INFRINGEMENT.
12.
It is humbly submitted before the honble court even though 48A of The Patents Act41
provides that any person who, without the requisite authority, makes, uses, offers to sell or
sells any patented invention within Aryavarta or imports into Aryavarta any patented
invention during the term of such patent, infringes the patent, the doctrine of exhaustion
forms the exception to the aforementioned rule of infringement. 42 The rationale behind this is
that a patentee, who has sold his product in the market, cannot be allowed to derive profits
from the subsequent transactions entered into by the purchaser.
13.
It is further submitted before the Honble Court that Vinshuk Pvt. Ltd., a company
incorporated under the laws of Aryavarta, legally sold
importing them from EU markets.43 It is contended that the conditions on the sale of the
patented products by Petitioners were highly restrictive, and hence invalid. Since this conduct
amounted to misuse of patent rights by Petitioners, the sale was, in effect, unrestrictive.
Moreover, as aforementioned that Sartri had already exhausted its rights in the patented
product once it was sold in
submitted that since Sartri had already exhausted its patent rights, Aksmit legally bought the
pre-used Riska kits from Hun Shui, without the need of Sartri's authority in this regard.
Furthermore, the exhaustion of Sartri's patent rights had enabled Hun Shui to legally purchase
the said kits from EU customers. It is, thus, humbly contended that Hun Shui is not liable for
patent infringement.
41
42
43
Page | 7
RG08_R
14.
Subsequently, Aksmit Impex legally bought the aforementioned pre-used Riska kits from
Hun Shui, which were refurbished and sold in the Aryavarta market by Vinshuk, without
requiring Sartri's authority in this regard.44 Therefore, it is humbly submitted that Hun Shui,
Aksmit Impex and Vinshuk have not infringed the patented product.
A.
15.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the restrictions imposed on resale of the
Riska kits and post-sale restrictions on cartridges were unreasonable and unenforceable.
Since the sale was authorized as Melaka sold kits under license for sell45, the sale of Riska
kits were authorized and unrestricted. Hence the authorized First-sale of kits in EU by
Melaka relinquished the patent monopoly i.e. exhausted the entire patent rights with respect
to the kits sold.46 Further Aksmit Impex for any importation of pre-used Riska kits doesnt
need any authority since Aryavarta recognizes international exhaustion by virtue of the
language of 107A(b) of the Act.47 Therefore Vinshuk, Aksmit Impex and Hun Shui are not
liable for patent infringement.
16.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the restrictions imposed on resale of the
Riska kits and post-sale restrictions on cartridges48 were unenforceable and unreasonable,
such that patent in dispute was for Riska kit rather than a combination of the Riska kit
and the cartridge.49 Thus, the authorized First-sale of the kits in EU, by Melaka,
44
45
46
47
48
49
Page | 8
RG08_R
relinquished the patent monopoly, thereby exhausting the patent rights with respect to the kits
sold.50 Hence, the downstream purchasers of the product cannot be held liable for patent
infringement as there were no patent rights to preserve. Moreover, since Aryavarta follows
the policy of international exhaustion, 107A(b) of the Act,51 the Respondents did not require
express authority from the Appellants before importing Riska kits into Aryavarta.
17.
Hence conditions on cartridges with the sale of Riska by Petitioners make restrictions
excessive as given in 140(iii)(c) of the Act.52 Furthermore, restrictions on cartridges were
post-sale restrictions, which are ineffective.53 This is because no restriction is enforceable
under patent law upon a purchaser of a sold article.54 It is further submitted that Petitioners
have used restrictive conditions on licenses or sales to broaden the scope of the patent grant,
such that an accused Respondents may invoke the doctrine of patent misuse to defeat the
petitioners claim.55 It is humbly submitted that it is the adverse effect upon the public interest
of a successful infringement suit in conjunction with the patentees course of conduct which
disqualifies him to maintain the infringement suit, regardless of whether the particular
defendant has suffered from the misuse of the patent.56
18.
It is the leading treatise on patent law stating that prohibiting production or sale
of competing goods is a classic act of misuse and notes that the courts have consistently
taken the view that a provision in a patent license requiring a party not to deal in products that
50
51
52
53
Tessera, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 646 F.3d 1357, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2011).
54
55
56
Windsurfing International v. Fred Ostermann GmbH, 613 F. Supp. 933 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).
Page | 9
RG08_R
compete with the patented product constitutes misuse per se.57 Further, Doctrine of patent
misuse applies to use of patent as vehicle for price-fixing or imposition of
other restrictions upon resale of patented product.58 Since Sartri was the only seller for
Riska kits in Aryavarta59, its restriction on resale was aimed at eliminating competition;
hence anti-competitive60, and unreasonable. Hence further use and sale by downstream
purchasers of the kit will not amount to infringement.61
19.
It is, thus, humbly submitted that because of the nature of patent grants and because of the
equity doctrine of patent misuse, such owner may, as to future protection of his rights and
after the baleful effects of the misuse have been fully dissipated, relieve himself of this
impediment by ceasing the unlawful use.62 This is known as the doctrine of purge.63 Since
the doctrine of misuse was developed based on the strong public policy against allowing one
who wrongfully uses a patent to enforce it during the misuse, the remedy of purge has
developed, requiring that there be a showing that a dissipation or purge of the misuse has
occurred, before the patentee may enforce his patent.64 The patent right of the Appellants,
therefore, cannot be enforced until the effects of the misuse have been purged.65
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
Id.
64
In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity, 472 F. Supp. 180 (S.D. Fla. 1979).
65
Page | 10
RG08_R
B.
THAT
THE RESPONDENTS ARE NEITHER LIABLE FOR DIRECT NOR FOR INDUCED
INFRINGEMENT.
20.
It is humbly submitted that the European Union follows a policy of regional exhaustion.66
This implies that the sale of a patented product in EU will exhaust the rights of the patentee
throughout the regional bloc of countries. In the instant case, Melaka sold the Riska kits in
the EU, thus exhausting its right in the patented kit. Subsequently, Hun Shui collected the
pre-used Riska kits from the EU market and sold it to Aksmit Impex in the European
Union itself. It is, thus, submitted that since the patent rights had already been exhausted in
the kits after the first sale, the act of collecting pre-used Riska kits and selling them to
Aksmit Impex, within the EU itself, does not amount to patent infringement as there were no
patent rights to preserve.
21.
Furthermore,
inducement
requires
that
the
Aksmit Impex, after purchasing the kits from Hun Shui, imported them into Aryavarta. The
66
Largan Precision Co, Ltd v. Genius Electronic Optical Co.Ltd., 2014 WL 5358426, (N.D.Cal.2014).
68
Page | 11
RG08_R
Riska kits were then supplied to Vinshuk. As aforestated, Aryavarta follows a policy of
international exhaustion by virtue of the language of 107A(b) of The Patents Act. Since,
Aksmit Impex did not require prior authority from the Appellants for importing the kits, their
conduct, in so far as the importation into Aryavarta and subsequent supply to Vinshuk is
concerned, does not amount to infringement.
23.
It is humbly submitted that after the first sale in the EU, the patent rights were exhausted.
Furthermore, the application of the policy of international exhaustion in Aryavarta allows the
Respondents to import the kits without the prior authority of the Appellants. Moreover, the
exemption under 107A(b) includes the right to sell and distribute, since the absence of the
word sale appears more as an oversight than a deliberate attempt to curtail the scope of the
international exhaustion principle envisaged under section 107A(b).69 Since there are no
patent rights to enforce, Vinshuk cannot be held liable for patent infringement.
24.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that since Vinshuk, Aksmit Impex and Hun
Shui have not directly infringed the patented product for reasons discussed above, none of the
Respondents can be held liable for inducement to infringe. The aforementioned argument
finds force in the rationale that in order to establish Respondents liability
for inducing infringement of a patent, the Petitioners are required to prove that Respondents
actively and knowingly aided and abetted another's direct infringement.70 It is, thus, a
prerequisite of a claim for inducement of infringement that there is direct infringement of the
patent claims.
It is humbly submitted that Vinshuk, Aksmit Impex and Hun Shui are not liable for patent
infringement of the Riska kits.
69
Shamnad Basheer & Mrinalini Kochupillai, TRIPS, Patents and Parallel Imports in India: A Proposal for
Amendment, 2 IJIPL 63 (2009).
70
Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325 (Fed.Cir.2008).
Page | 12
RG08_R
III.
TRANSFER
PRICING
OFFICER
(TPO)
WAS
THE
MOST
APPROPRIATE METHOD.
25.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the payment of royalty by Sartri to Zen
was not at arms length price, since the payment of running royalty at 15% of the price per
unit of Riska was excessive in nature. The TPO has adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled
Price (CUP) Method to reach the aforementioned conclusion.
26.
It is humbly submitted that the CUP method is the most direct and reliable way to employ the
arms length principle. Consequently, it is preferred over all other methods.71 While applying
the CUP Method, as explained in Rule 10B(1) of the Income Tax Rules, the price for a
comparable uncontrolled transaction is identified and compared to the international
transaction which, if needed, is accounted for differences; the resultant adjusted price being
the Arms Length Price.72 For the purpose of comparability, an uncontrolled transaction is to
be judged in reference to the specific characteristics of the property transferred or services
provided in either transaction.73 A case is said to be comparable when it is from the same
genus of products and also other relevant factors, such as, type of products, market share,
assets employed, functions performed and risks assumed, are also similar.74
27.
It is further submitted that the CUP Method can be applied to determine the arms length
71
OECD, OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations,
Organisation
for
Economic
Co-operation
and
Development,
(Oct.2,2016,3:04P.M.),
http://www.ilsole24ore.com/pdf2010/SoleOnLine5/_Oggetti_Correlati/Documenti/Norme%20e%20Tributi/201
1/02/istruzioni-uso-societa-perdite-fiscali/ocse-linee-guida-2010-prezzi-trasferimento.pdf.
72
Rule 10B(1), The Income-tax Rules, 1962, Notification No. 14/1962-IT, (ITR), (26-3-1962).
73
Rule 10B(2)(a), The Income-tax Rules, 1962, Notification No. 14/1962-IT, (ITR), (26-3-1962).
74
Sony Ericsson v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2015) 218 DLT 449 (DB).
Page | 13
RG08_R
In the instant case, since the Riska kit, which employs Robocasting, is patented, there is a
limited supply of similar such kits in the market. In case there are no inter-company
transactions, there may be no reason to reject a company merely because it is part of a
group.77 The royalty transaction, thus, can be judged on the anvil of similar payments made
by group companies to their associated enterprises in other countries and region. 78 Therefore,
the TPO was constrained to take into account the royalty payment of 5% made by Melaka to
RGS for the sale of Riska kits in the EU. Moreover, since it is rare to locate an identical
transaction, the arm's length price is determined by taking the results of a comparable
transaction in comparable circumstances and making suitable adjustments for the
differences.79
29.
It is further submitted on behalf of the Respondents that royalty is a payment reserved by the
75
OECD (2014),Guidance on Transfer Pricing Aspects of Intangibles, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit
Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, (Oct. 5, 2016, 2:55 PM) http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264219212-en.
76
79
Mentor Graphics Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2007 Indlaw ITAT 21.
Page | 14
RG08_R
grantor of a patent, payable proportionately to the use made of the right by the grantee.80
Thus, the quantum of royalty payment depends upon the extent of patent rights transferred to
the grantee i.e., Sartri. In the instant case, Sartri was licensed merely to import and sell
Riska kits in Aryavarta.81 Furthermore, the aforementioned license was non-transferable,
non-alienable and non-licensable. Melaka, on the other hand, was granted a license to
manufacture, sell and export Riska kits in the EU, in exchange for a royalty payment of
5%. It is contended that specific characteristics of the controlled transaction, with regard to
the functions performed and risk assumed, has to be taken into account while computing the
arms length price. Since the patent rights, transferred by way of a license to Sartri, were
limited as compared to the rights transferred to Melaka, the payment of 15% running royalty
was excessive in nature.
30.
The only comparable product of the Riska kit, in the market, was Visaka.82 Since Visaka
was not an infringing product, it can be relied upon as a benchmark for the related party
transaction between Sartri and Zen. Moreover, Vinshuk was involved in a transaction with
Aksmit Impex for the purchase of Riska kits which were imported from the EU.
31.
Furthermore, the burden to establish that the international transaction was carried at arms
length is on the taxpayer. He also has to furnish comparable transactions, apply appropriate
method for determination of arms length price and justify the same by producing relevant
material and documents before the revenue authorities.83 The rationale behind this principle is
that the taxpayer, as a party to the transaction, has full knowledge of the transaction carried
80
H.C.Black, BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, rev. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company 1496 (4th ed.,
1968).
81
82
Mentor Graphics Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2007 Indlaw ITAT 21.
83
Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd. v. ACIT, 2007 Indlaw ITAT 15.
Page | 15
RG08_R
on and profit earned by him. As a person associated with that particular line of business
activity, the assessee is reasonably expected to be not only aware about nuances of that
business, but also about the economic conditions and peculiar circumstances, if any, of that
business. He is likely to know even about comparable uncontrolled transactions. 84 It is
humbly submitted that the Appellants, in the instant case, have not discharged their burden of
proving that the transaction undertaken by them was at arms length.
32.
It is, thus, humbly submitted that the TPO was correct in holding that the royalty payment
was excessive in nature. Moreover, this view was affirmed by the Honble High Court and
requires no alteration. Furthermore, the selection of CUP method by the TPO as the most
appropriate method was correct and in accordance with the Income tax rules.85
33.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble court that the CUP method is the most direct and
reliable way to employ the arms length principle. Consequently it is preferred over all other
methods.86 The CUP method is explained in Income tax rules 10B(1), according to which the
price for a comparable uncontrolled transaction is identified and compared to the
international transaction which if needed is accounted for differences, thus the adjusted price
is the Arms length price.87 For the purpose of comparability, an uncontrolled transaction is to
be judged in reference to the specific characteristics of the property transferred or services
provided in either transaction.88 A case is said to be comparable when it is from the same
genus of products and also other relevant factors, such as, type of products, market share,
84
Id.
85
92C(2), The Income-tax Act, 1973, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1961(India).
86
OECD, OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations,
Organisation
for
Economic
Co-operation
and
Development,
(Oct.2,2016,3:04P.M.),
http://www.ilsole24ore.com/pdf2010/SoleOnLine5/_Oggetti_Correlati/Documenti/Norme%20e%20Tributi/201
1/02/istruzioni-uso-societa-perdite-fiscali/ocse-linee-guida-2010-prezzi-trasferimento.pdf.
87
Rule 10B(1), The Income-tax Rules, 1962, Notification No. 14/1962-IT, (ITR), (26-3-1962).
88
Rule 10B(2)(a), The Income-tax Rules, 1962, Notification No. 14/1962-IT, (ITR), (26-3-1962).
Page | 16
RG08_R
assets employed, functions performed and risks assumed, are also similar.89
34.
Hence, the TPO was correct in choosing Visaka, as the comparable because it was the only
other 3D printer kit available in the market.90 Placing reliance on the case of Noble Resources
& Trading India Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2014, the court held that
several benches of the Tribunal has held that CUP is the most appropriate method in the case
of trading transactions provided the uncontrolled transactions relied by the assessee are really
comparable and necessary data requiring adjustments, if any, is available. 91 As it has already
been proven that Visaka was not an infringing product, the selection of CUP method by the
TPO as the most appropriate method was correct and in accordance with the Income tax
rules.92
It is humbly submitted that the CUP method used by the TPO was the most appropriate
method as the comparable used was not an infringing product.
89
Sony Ericsson v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2015) 218 DLT 449 (DB).
90
91
Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2014 SCC OnLine
ITAT 487.
92
92C(2), The Income-tax Act, 1973, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1961(India).
Page | 17
RG08_R
IV.
35.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the seizure of the goods imported by
Aksmit Impex was made in a fair & reasonable manner following a due procedure established
by law under 110 of the Custom Act. Rules or regulations made in exercise of statutory
powers are law.93 The Commissioner of customs had the authority to seize the imported
Riska kits as they were infringing products. As prescribed under the Rule 3 of the custom
enforcement rules, 200794, Sartri had filed a notice with the custom officials.95 Proper
procedure established by law was followed by the custom officials as prescribed under the
IPR Enforcement Rules, 2007 in seizing the consignment under the IPR Enforcement Rules,
2007.
A.
THE
36.
The Custom officials had the reason to believe that the pre used Riska kits which were
being imported were infringing because they were being imported to Aryavarta by Aksmit
Impex without the authority of Sartri. Sartri being the company that sold the Riska kits in
Aryavarta through its authorized outlets96, as it had been granted the license for the sale of
Riska in Aryavarta. Thus, Aksmit Impex was liable for infringement under 48A of the
Patents Act, 197097 as Aksmit Impex did not have authorization to make, use, or sell the
93
94
Rule 7(9), Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, Notification No. 47/2007Cus. (N.T.), (8-5-2007).
95
96
97
Page | 18
RG08_R
It is further submitted that under Rule 7(9) of the IPR Enforcement Rules98 clearly states that
the seizure of the goods alleged to be infringing can be done by the custom officials. In cases
of patent infringement, in absence of judicial pronouncement, the custom authority can
determine that whether there was patent violation or not.99
B.
PROPER
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS.
38.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble court that the procedure followed by the custom
officials for the seizure of goods was reasonable and fair because the custom officials had
followed the procedure as laid down in Section 110 of the Custom Act in a fair manner.
39.
100(2) of the Custom Act100 requires the notice to be sent under clause (a) of 124 of the
act101 within six months of the seizure of the goods which was followed in the instant case.102
As mentioned in 9 lines 3 of the moot proposition Aksmit Impex was sent the notice
regarding the Seizure of their imported consignment without such lapse.103
40.
Further, the Article 50 (2) of the TRIPS states that judicial authorities shall have the authority
to adopt provisional measures inaudita altera parte where appropriate104, thus the delivery of
98
Rule 7(9), Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, Notification No. 47/2007Cus. (N.T.), (8-5-2007).
99
100
100(2), The Customs Act, 1973, No. 52, Acts of Parliament, 1962(India).
101
124(a), The Customs Act, 1973, No. 52, Acts of Parliament, 1962(India).
102
110 (2), The Customs Act, 1973, No. 52, Acts of Parliament, 1962(India). .
103
104
TRIPS: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, art.6, Apr. 15, 1994,
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, THE LEGAL TEXTS: THE
Page | 19
RG08_R
the notice is given after the seizure, henceforth not violating the principles of natural justice
as any delay made can cause irreparable damage to the right holder.105
It is humbly submitted that the custom commissioner of customs has not violated Aksmit
Impexs fundamental right to property because the seizure of the imported goods which are
infringing products has been made in accordance with the procedure established by law.
RESULTS OF THE URUGUAY ROUND OF MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS 320 (1999), 1869
U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994).
105
TRIPS: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, art.6, Apr. 15, 1994,
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, THE LEGAL TEXTS: THE
RESULTS OF THE URUGUAY ROUND OF MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS 320 (1999), 1869
U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994).
Page | 20
RG08_R
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is most
humbly and respectfully prayed before this Honble Court to adjudge and declare that:
1. That the Exhaustion/First Doctrine is not applicable.
2. Vinshuk, Aksmit Impex and Hun Shui are not liable for patent infringement.
3. The TPO is correct in assessing that the transaction is not according to Arms Length
Price based on CUP method.
4. That the Fundamental Right to property, under Article 21, of Aksmit Impex has not
been violated by the Commissioner of Customs.
In the alternative, pass any other relief which the Court may deem fit and proper.
All of which is humbly submitted.
sd/__________________________
(Counsel on the behalf of Respondents)
Page | XVII