12/18/2019 Patent Case Brief - Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v Hindustan Metal Industries - Notes For Free

JANUARY 18, 2018 BY ADMIN

Patent Case Brief – Biswanath Prasad Radhey

Shyam v Hindustan Metal Industries
Spread the love

You can grab other case briefs on other IPR topics from here.

Citation – AIR 1982 SC 1444

Facts:
§ Hindustan Metal Industries (Plaintiff) is a registered partnership rm 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 xed
to the headstock by thermoplastic cement or held in the jaws of a chuck xed to the head-
stock. This system was, however, fraught with risk to the workers inasmuch as the utensils
used to y off from the headstock.
§ To introduce improvement, convenience speed, safety and better nish 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 led the case of infringement.
§ The defendant led a counter-claim, praying for revocation of the patent on the grounds
notesforfree.com/2018/01/18/patent-case-brief-biswanath-prasad-radhey-shyam-v-hindustan-metal-industries/ 1/3
12/18/2019 Patent Case Brief - Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v Hindustan Metal Industries - Notes For Free

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. Dissatis ed 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?

Analysis:
§ 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 veri cation 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 modi cation
in the patented invention would have been obvious to any skilled worker in the eld based on
knowledge existing at the date of patent.

Conclusion:   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.

You can grab other case briefs on other IPR topics from here.

Spread the love

notesforfree.com/2018/01/18/patent-case-brief-biswanath-prasad-radhey-shyam-v-hindustan-metal-industries/ 2/3