Versus: Page 1 of 26

10TH MAHAMANA MALAVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023 TC-34
TEAM CODE- TC-34
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KASHI
………………………………….…………………………………………………………….
CIVIL SUIT NO. ………………………… OF 2023
(Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

………………………………….…………………………………………………………….
IN THE MATTER OF:
JEDI CORPORATION ………… (PLAINTIFF)
VERSUS
1- GOVERNMENT OF TATOOINE ………… (DEFENDANT NO. 1)
2- PALPATINE GALACTIC EMPIRES ………… (DEFENDANT NO. 2)
3- DR. ANAKIN SKYWALKER ………… (DEFENDANT NO. 3)
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS
Page 1 of 26
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………………………………………….5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………….7
STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………………………………….……...8
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED………………………………………………………..……10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ………………………………………………………….11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ……………………………………………………………..13
I: WHETHER THE PATENT GRANTED TO THE PLAINTIFF IS VALID OR

NOT?…………………………………………………………………………………...13
1.1 The Product of The Plaintiff Comes Under The Definition of Patent……………..13
1.2 The product of Plaintiff does not follow the criteria for grant of Patent……………14
1.2.1 The Product of Plaintiff does not follow The Principle of Novelty………....14
1.2.2 The Product of Plaintiff does not follow The Principle of Inventive Step or Non-
Obviousness ………………………………………………….......................16
1.2.3 The Product of Plaintiff does not follow The Principle of Industrial
Applicability (Utility)……………………………………………………...17
1.3 Section 3 (d) of The Patents Act, 1970 is applicable on The Product of
Plaintiff………………………..……………………………….…….…………18
Page 2 of 26
II: WHETHER THE DEVICE INTRODUCED BY DEFENDANT PALPATINE

GLACTIC EMPIRE INFRINGES THE PATENT OF THE PLAINTIFF?………...19
2.1 Infringement of Patent of The Plaintiff Product/Device…………………….…..19
2.2 Rights of Patentee……………………………………………………..…………20
III: WHETHER DEFENDANT NO. 3 DR. ANAKIN SKYWALKER IS LIABLE FOR

SHARING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW,
TRADE SECRETS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION?……………………………....21
3.1 There was not a Breach of Confidential Information ………………………………22
3.2 Spring Board Doctrine……………………………………………………………....23
3.3 Defendant no.3 Anakin Skywalker obey the rule of Non-Disclosure Agreement
(NDA)……………………………………………………………………………...23
3.3.1 Exceptions to Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)……………………….23
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………..………………26
Page 3 of 26
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article
Bom. Bombay
Corp. Corporation
et al. And others
HC High Court
i.e. That is
IPR Intellectual Property Rights
PTC Patent and Trademark Cases
RPC Reports of Patent Cases
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Sec. Section
TRIPS Trade – Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
Tech. Technology
Ors. Others
NDA Non – Disclosure Agreement
Pvt. Ltd. Private Limited
R&D Research and Development
US United States
v., vs. Versus
WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization
Page 4 of 26
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
INDIAN CASES
SL. CASE NAME CITATION PAGE NO.
1. Monsanto Co. v. Coromandal Indag AIR 1986 S.C. 712 15

products (P) Ltd.
2. Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. (1972) 2 SCC 511 16

Hindustan Metal Industries
3. Dhanpat Seth & Others v. Nil Kamal Plastic 2008 (36) PTC 123 (HP) 16
Crates Ltd. (DB)
4. American Express Bank Ltd. v. Ms. Priya (2006)III LLJ 540(Del) 23

Puri
5. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086 24
6. Subhash Kumar v. State. of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598 25
FOREIGN CASES
SL. CASE NAME CITATION PAGE NO.

1. Potters Ballotini v. Weston Baker (1977) RPC 202 23
STATUTES
 THE PATENTS ACT, 1970

 THE PATENTS RULES, 2003
 THE NATIONAL INNOVATION ACT, 2008
Page 5 of 26
 THE PATENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
BOOKS/JOURNAL
 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS – LAWS AMD PRACTICES, THE INSTITUTE

OF COMPANY SECRETARIES OF INDIA (ICSI)
 RAMA SARMA: A COMMENTARY ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
 BY DR. MADHU SUDAN DASH, TEST OF NOVELTY UNDER INDIAN PATENT
LAW: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS, VOLUME-4 GJRA (2015)
DECLARATION/CONVENTION
 THE PARIS CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY,

1967
 PATENT CO-OPERATION TREATY, 1978
 TRADE RELATED ASPECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (TRIPS)
 THE WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION (WIPO)
 WIPO MODEL PROVISIONS ON PROTECTION AGAINST UNFAIR COMPETITION
MISCELLANEOUS
 www.manupatra.com
 www.scconline.com
 www.wipo.int
 www.meity.gov.in
 www.mca.gov.in
Page 6 of 26
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble High Court of Kashi has its Jurisdiction in this matter for hearing of Interim
Injunction Application Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
ORDER XXXIX
Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders
Temporary Injunctions
1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.— Where in any suit it is proved
by affidavit or otherwise—
(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated
by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or
(b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view
to [defrauding] his creditors,
[(c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the
plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit,]
the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other
order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal
or disposition of the property [or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to
the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the Court thinks fit, until the
disposal of the suit or until further orders.
2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach.—(1) In any suit for restraining

the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether
compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the
commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a
temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury
complained of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract
or relating to the same property or right.
(2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the
injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit.
Page 7 of 26
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Republic of Tatooine, a lower-middle income country with high population density is

located in the African continent. The extremely hot and arid climate, frequents sand
storms and large scale use of fossil fuels have severely impacted the air quality of
Tatooine leading to several respiratory diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, asthma and lung cancer among its inhabitants.
2. Kyber Crystal, a naturally occurring native substance of Tatooine has the ability to purify
air but in limited closed premises by virtue of its chemical property ‘force’ and a process
called Negative Air Ionization (NAI). The crystal and its air purifying qualities have been
traditionally known and elaborately discussed in its ancient texts.
3. Coruscant based multinational company called Jedi Corporation holds largest patent
portfolios of environmental devices. It is a knowledge based company with highest R&D
expenditure in the world on green technology.
4. Dr. Anakin Skywalker, a scientist of Tatooine nationality works in the R&D unit of Jedi
Corporation. A team lead by him discovered the Beta Crystalline form of Kyber Crystal
which they monikered as ‘Super Kyber Crystal’.
5. In the press release of Jedi Corporation, it stated that the Beta Crystalline form works
more efficiently than the already known Alpha Crystalline form and that Super Kyber
Crystal can purify air over large open areas which was not possible hitherto.
6. In order to discharge this function Super Kyber Crystal was used inside a device called
‘Lightsaber’. Thus a new device called An Air Filtration device based on Beta Crystalline
form of Kyber Crystal was invented and patent for the same was filed in multiple
jurisdiction one of which was filed in Tatooine Patent office on 30th March, 2010. And
finally patent was granted on 22nd October, 2012 as TA 22101996.
7. Tatooine based Palpatine GE is an environmental products company whose R&D unit

‘Darth Sidious’ which studies and seeks to find out new wage of utilizing air purification
properties of Kyber Crystal.
Page 8 of 26
8. Upon knowledge of Jedi Corporation’s patent, it filed a post-grant opposition against the
said patent but it was dismissed for non-prosecution and non-adherence with the
timelines of the Patent Rules, 2003.
9. In 2020, upon coming to Tatooine and knowing about the bad quality of air and
unavailability of Lightsaber, Dr. Anakin Skywalker decided to leave employment at
Coruscant and work in Tatooine. He joined R&D unit of Palpatine GE and after two years
introduce a device called ‘Darksaber’ which could purify air over large open spaces. A
press release was issued which disclosed that Darksaber is a state-of-the-art air filtration
device that works on Negative Air Ionization technology. Application for grant of patent
for the same was filed in TPO in 2021.
10. Upon knowledge of the said product a cease-and-desist notice was sent by Jedi Corp. to
Palpatine GE seeking cease of manufacturing, selling, and distribution of Darksaber. A
reply for the same was filed by Palpatine GE contending non-infringement of TA-
22101996 and stating the said patent as invalid. Jedi Corporation also issued notice to Dr.
Anakin for sharing its proprietary information with Palpatine GE.
11. In these circumstances, Jedi Corp. has filed a quia timet action before the High Court of
Kashi, seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining Palpatine GE from
manufacturing, selling, or otherwise dealing with ‘Kyber Crystals’, ‘Super Kyber
Crystals’ and ‘Darksaber’ as would infringe patent no. TA 22101996. Jedi Corp. has also
impleaded the Government of Tatooine as a Defendant in the suit. In response to the quia
timet action, Palpatine GE has filed a counter claim seeking revocation of Jedi Corp.’s
patent. A suit has also been filed by Jedi Corp. against Dr. Skywalker seeking restraint
on use of its confidential information, technical know-how, trade secrets and unfair
competition.
Page 9 of 26
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED
==================================================================
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PATENT GRANTED TO THE PLAINTIFF IS VALID?
==================================================================
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DEVICE INTRODUCED BY THE DEFENDANT

PALPATINE GE INFRINGES THE PATENT NO. TA- 22101996 OF THE
PLAINTIFF JEDI CORPORATION?
==================================================================
ISSUE 3: WHETHER DEFENDANT NO. 3 DR. SKYWALKER LIABLE FOR

SHARING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, TECHNICAL KNOW-
HOW, TRADE SECRETS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION?
=================================================================
Page 10 of 26
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
It is humbly submitted that the patent granted to the plaintiff not valid. Patent is an
exclusive right given to the owner for his invention. For grant of patent, an invention
must fulfil three tests i.e. novelty, inventiveness and utility. The subject invention of
plaintiff i.e. Lightsaber does not possess novelty as it uses the Kyber Crystal which was
known earlier. Further it does not involve new apparatus as the device already used in
Tatooine as Air filtration devices already used Kyber Crystal. The device of the plaintiff
uses Kyber Crystal which was already in public domain and its air filtration qualities
forms part of the Traditional Knowledge and was mentioned in the ancient texts of
Tatooine. Further, the Beta Crystalline form was discovered and patent is granted over
inventions and not on mere discovery. Hence, the patent granted to the plaintiff is
invalid.

PALPATINE GALACTIC EMPIRES INFRINGES THE PATENT OF THE
PLAINTIFF JEDI CORPORATION ?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the device introduced by
Defendant Palpatine GE i.e. Darksaber does not infringe the patent of the plaintiff over
its device i.e. Lightsaber since it is based on the state-of the-art and no exclusivity can
be claimed over substances which are in public domain. Hence, Darksaber does not
infringe the patent of the plaintiff.
Page 11 of 26
ISSUE 3: WHETHER DEFENDANT NO. 3 DR. SKYWALKER LIABLE FOR SHARING

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW, TRADE
SECRETS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION?
It is humbly submitted that the Defendant No. 3 Dr. Anakin Skywalker being the
scientist of Tatooine nationality was also aware of the substance Kyber Crystal and its
air purifying qualities as it was already in public domain. When Dr. Anakin came to
know about the constantly degrading air quality of Tatooine and the unavailability of
any of the environmental products of Jedi Corporation including Lightsaber, he decided
to leave his employment at Jedi Corporation and work in his native country for its
welfare. The extreme bad air quality of Tatooine compelled Dr. Anakin to join the
Palpatine GE of his native country Tatooine for its welfare for developing technology
that would help in averting the environmental catastrophe and after two years of
extensive research, it introduced a device under the name ‘Darksaber’ that could be
used to purify air over large areas including open spaces. Therefore, it is humbly
submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Defendant No. 3 Dr. Anakin Skywalker is
not liable for sharing confidential information, technical knowhow, trade secrets and
unfair competition.
Page 12 of 26
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. It is humbly submitted that, the patent granted to the plaintiff is not valid since it does
not abide by all the criteria of patentability that has been provided under The Patents
Act, 1970 as [1.1] the product of the plaintiff comes under the definition of patent [1.2]
the product of plaintiff does not follow the criteria for grant of patent [1.3] section 3(d)
of the patent act, 1970 is applicable on the product of plaintiff is covered.
1.1 THE PRODUCT OF THE PLAINTIFF COMES UNDER THE

DEFINITION OF PATENT
2. It is submitted that the WIPO convention states that Intellectual Property shall
include the rights relating to inventions in all fields of human endeavour, and all other
rights resulting from intellectual activity in the industrial and scientific fields.1
3. Moreover, the Patent is an official document given to an inventor by the Government

allowing him to exclude anyone else from commercially exploiting his invention for a
limited period, which is 20 years at present.2 As per the Patents Act, 1970, the term
‘patent’ connotes ‘a patent of any invention granted under the (Patents) Act, 1970. 3
4. As per the definition of WIPO, “A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention,
which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something,
or offers a new technical solution to a problem. To get a patent, technical information
about the invention must be disclosed to the public in a patent application.”
5. As per the definition of TRIPS agreement ‘Patent shall be available for any invention,
whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new,
involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application.’ 4
1
Article 2 (viii) of WIPO Convention, Stockholm (1967)
2
The Institute Of Company Secretaries Of India, Intellectual Property Rights – Laws And Practices, Module 3,
Elective Paper 9.3, Page 93 (2020)
3
The Patents Act, 1970, § 2 (m)
4
Art. 27 (1) TRIPS Agreement
Page 13 of 26
6. It is imperative to note here that according to Section 2(1) (j) of The Patents Act, 1970,
the term ‘invention’ connotes “a new product or process involving an inventive step
and capable of industrial application.’’ Thus, the definition itself figures out that in
order to get a grant of patent for any invention the invention must pass the three criteria
of patentability. Firstly, the invention must be a new product or process, secondly, it
must involve an inventive step and lastly, it must be capable of industrial application.
1.2. THE PRODUCT OF PLAINTIFF DOES NOT FOLLOW THE CRITERIA

FOR GRANT OF PATENT
Similarly, there are three criteria which an invention must fulfil for a grant of patent:
 Novelty
 Inventive step (non-obviousness) and
 Industrial applicability (utility) 5
1.2.1. THE PRODUCT OF PLAINTIFF DOES NOT FOLLOW THE

PRINCIPLE OF NOVELTY
7. The first test of patentability is Novelty, i.e., the invention must be new and not similar
to any other inventions or existing products. According to Section 2 (1) (l) of The
Patents Act, 1970, the term ‘new invention’ connotes “any invention or technology
which has not been anticipated by publication in any document or used in the country
or elsewhere before the date of filing of patent application with complete specification,
i.e., the subject matter has not fallen in the public domain or that it does not form part
of the state of the art.”
8. Thus, an invention is considered as new if it is not anticipated by prior publication, prior

use or prior public knowledge. It should not have been disclosed in the prior art, where
5
Page 14 of 26
the prior art means everything that has been published, presented or otherwise disclosed
to the public before the date of filing of complete specification.6
9. However, the phrase ‘state of the art’ is not defined in The Patents Act, 1970. Under
the English Law it has been defined as: “the state of art in the case of an invention shall
be taken to comprise all matter (whether a product, process, information about either,
or anything else) which has at any time before the priority date of that invention been
made available to the public (whether in U.K. or elsewhere) by written or oral
description, by use or in any way.” 7
10. An invention is not considered ‘new’ if the claimed invention is publicly known or
publicly used in India before the priority date as has been observed by the Supreme
Court in Monsanto Co. v. Coromandal Indag products (P) Ltd. 8 that ‘Publicly known
does not mean that it must be published in a document, although not found in a book, it
may form a part of the common knowledge among the public concerned. It also does
not mean that it should be widely used to the knowledge of the consumer. It is sufficient
if it is known to persons who are engaged in the pursuit of knowledge of the patented
product or process, either as men of science or men of commerce or as consumers.’9
11. On the basis of above averments it is humbly submitted that Kyber Crystal is a naturally
occurring substance native to Tatooine. The crystal has been traditionally known to the
people of Tatooine and its air purifying quality has been elaborately discussed in the
ancient texts of Tatooine.10 As such the substance is a prior art, is prior published,
within prior use and prior public knowledge. It also forms part of the state-of-the art.
Thus, the subject invention by the plaintiff Jedi Corporation is not a ‘new invention’.
6
By Dr. Madhu Sudan Dash, Test Of Novelty Under Indian Patent Law: A Critical Analysis, GJRA, Volume-
4, Issue 5, pg. 216
7
Art. 54 (2), European Pa5tent Convention
8
AIR 1986 S.C. 712
9
By Dr. Madhu Sudan Dash, Test Of Novelty Under Indian Patent Law: A Critical Analysis, GJRA, Volume-
4, Issue 5, pg. 217
10
¶ 2, Moot Proposition
Page 15 of 26
1.2.2. THE PRODUCT OF PLAINTIFF DOES NOT FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE

OF INVENTIVE STEP OR NON-OBVIOUSNESS
12. The second crucial test is Non-obviousness i.e., the invention must involve an inventive
step. According to section 2(1) (ja) of The Patents Act, 1970, the term ‘inventive
step’ means a ‘feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to
existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the
invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art.’ Therefore, in order that a patent be
granted for an invention, it should either involve an inventive step or be non-obvious to
a person skilled in the art. What is obvious cannot be regarded as involving an inventive
step and, hence, non-patentable.
13. The concept of inventive step was introduced in India in the case of Bishwanath Prasad
Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries11. It also reiterated the following tests
of obviousness:
 A skilled person must identify the inventive step in the form of prior use, art or
knowledge.
 He must be able to tell the difference between the subject matter and the invention.
 There must be a degree of invention.
14. In a similar case, the Himachal Pradesh High Court criticised the Controller of Patents
who had failed to notice in the device in question the predominance of traditional
knowledge before patenting it as an invention. Here the plaintiff had made cosmetic
changes in a traditional device known as 'Kilta' used for carrying agricultural produce
on hills, and got it patented. When the defendants manufactured the device and supplied
the same to the Department of Agriculture, Government of H.P. The plaintiff moved
the Court claiming that defendants had infringed its patent rights. The Court, however,
ruled against the plaintiff holding that the device in question was not an invention.12
15 It is humbly submitted that the unique chemical property of Kyber Crystal called ‘force’
enables to purify air by process called Negative Air Ionization (NAI). 13 The plaintiff
11
(1972) 2 SCC 511
12
Dhanpat Seth & Others v. Nil Kamal Plastic Crates Ltd., 2008 (36) PTC 123 (HP) (DB)
13
Page 16 of 26
has itself claimed in the patent application that the function of the subject invention is
based on Negative Air Ionization technology which is used to bring down the level of
Particulate Matter in the air.14
16. Further, Kyber Crystal as used in homes in Tatooine for air purification worked in
conjunction with unsophisticated systems of ventilation.15 The device invented by Jedi
Corporation uses sophisticated vent network.16 As such, there is no technical advance
used and a mere arrangement of the already existing device.
17. On the basis of above averments it is humbly submitted that the technology used in the
subject invention is based on an existing knowledge and no technological advancement
has been made. This makes the invention obvious and any person skilled in the art could
have done it with the help of the existing general knowledge. Therefore, the subject
invention of the plaintiff does not involve an inventive step.
1.2.3. THE PRODUCT OF PLAINTIFF DOES NOT FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE

OF INDUSTRIAL APPLICABILITY (UTILITY)
18. For an invention to be patentable the third requirement is that it should be useful.
‘Industrial applicability’ as defined states that “the invention is capable of being made
or used in an industry”.17 This basically means that the invention cannot exist in the
abstract. It must be capable of being applied in any industry, which means that it must
have practical utility in respect of patent.
19. It is submitted that an invention cannot be useful if it does not appear to be introducing
sufficient improvement over what is already known to the public. Kyber Crystal was
used for air purification and its air purifying quality was already known and has been
elaborately discussed in the ancient texts of Tatooine. The crystal was already in use in
14
¶ 13, Annexure No. 1, Moot Proposition
15
16
17
The Patents Act, 1970, § 2(1) (ac)
Page 17 of 26
Tatooine for purifying air.18 Therefore, the subject invention serves the same utility
which was already known and does not exhibits any new use.
1.3 SECTION 3 (D) OF THE PATENTS ACT, 1970 IS APPLICABLE ON

THE PRODUCT OF PLAINTIFF
The product of plaintiff comes under section 3(d) of the patent act, 1970 which
prove non-patentability of the product.
20. Section 3 (d) of The Patents Act, 1970 bars, “the mere discovery of a new form of a
known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that
substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance
or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process
results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.”
As noted, the said section is divided in to four categories i.e.,
 “mere discovery of a new form of a known substance, or

 “mere discovery of any new property for a known substance, or
 “mere discovery of new use of a known substance,” and
 “mere use of a known process, machine, or apparatus.”
Any invention lying in the ambit of any of the above categories is considered non-
patentable.
21. It is submitted that the team led by Dr. Anakin Skywalker discovered the Beta Crystalline
Form (BCF) of the already known substance Kyber Crystal. The plaintiff in its press
release has itself accepted the fact that the Beta Crystalline Form has been discovered.
Patent is always granted for an invention and not mere discovery of a known
substance.19
18
19
Page 18 of 26
22. Further, the subject invention of the plaintiff as described in the patent application
exhibits no new property or new use of the Beta Crystalline form. The plaintiff has
used the already known technology, process and apparatus to prepare the subject
invention for a known use by using the already known substance as has been itself
claimed in claims 1-9 of the patent application.
23. It is pertinent to know that the subject invention does not show any enhanced efficacy.
The patent application of the plaintiff contains no empirical study to prove or establish
the efficacy of the Kyber Crystal. 20
24. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the subject invention
Lightsaber doesn’t qualify the three tests and Section 3 (d) applies to the subject
invention of the plaintiff. Hence, the patent granted to Jedi Corporation is invalid.

PALPATINE GALACTIC EMPIRES INFRINGES THE PATENT NO. TA-
22101996 OF THE PLAINTIFF JEDI CORPORATION?
25. It is humbly submitted that the device introduced by the Defendant Palpatine Galactic
Empires does not infringes the patent no. TA- 22101996 of the Plaintiff Jedi Corporation
as [2.1] infringement of patent of the plaintiff product [2.2] rights of patentee is covered.
2.1 INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT OF THE PLAINTIFF PRODUCT/DEVICE
26. The term "patent infringement" refers to the violation of the patent owner's exclusive
rights. Patent rights are the exclusive rights granted by the government to an inventor
over his invention for a limited period of time. In other words, if any person exercises
the exclusive rights of the patent holder without the patent owner’s authorization then
20
Page 19 of 26
that person is liable for patent infringement.21 Section 104-114 of The Patents Act, 1970
provide guidelines for patent infringement.
2.2 RIGHTS OF PATENTEE

27. A grant of Patent in India gives the Patentee the exclusive model to utilize or make the
patented invention or utilize the patented procedure related to the invention. Certain
Rights and Obligations of Patentee are enshrined under the Patent Act, 1970. Section 48
(a) of the Act grants the following rights to the patentee in the case of a product patent,
the following actions would amount to infringement:
1. making,
2. using,
3. offering for sale,
4. selling, or
5. importing for these purposes, the product in India without the permission of the
patentee. 22
28. On the basis of above averment it is submitted that the defendant no. 2 Palpatine Galactic
Empires has not infringed the rights of the Plaintiff by making, using, offering for sale,
selling, or importing for these purposes, the product in India without the permission of
the patentee.
29. According to Section 107 of The Patents Act, 1970 in any suit for infringement of a
patent, every ground on which it may be revoked under section 64 shall be available as
a ground for defence.23
30. Section 64 (e) provides that “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 priority date of the claim or to what was published in India or elsewhere
in any of the documents referred to in section 13.”24 Further clause (f) provides that
21
22
The Patents Act, 1970, § 48 (a)
23
The Patents Act, 1970, § 107
24
The Patents Act, 1970, § 64 (e)
Page 20 of 26
“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 or elsewhere before the priority
date of the claim.” 25
31. It is pertinent to note here that the Air Filtration Device i.e. Lightsaber invented by Jedi
Corporation used Kyber Crystal which is a naturally occurring substance native to
Tatooine. The crystal was publicly known to the people of Tatooine and its air purifying
quality has been elaborately discussed in the ancient texts of Tatooine. It was used by
the people of Tatooine in homes and closed premises for air purification.
32. Further, it was already in traditional knowledge that the unique chemical property i.e.
‘force’ enables Kyber Crystal to purify air through a process called Negative Air
Ionization (NAI). The device invented by Jedi Corporation is also based on the same
technology and on the existing knowledge. There is no technical advance and it is
obvious to any person skilled in the art. Thus, it does not involve any inventive step.
33. On the basis of above averment it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the
device introduced by Defendant Palpatine Galactic Empires i.e. Darksaber does not
infringe the patent of the plaintiff over its device i.e. Lightsaber since it is based on the
state-of the-art and no exclusivity can be claimed over substances which are in public
domain.
ISSUE 3: WHETHER DEFENDANT NO. 3 DR. ANAKIN SKYWALKER LIABLE

FOR SHARING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, TECHNICAL
KNOW-HOW, TRADE SECRETS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION?
34. It is humbly submitted that Defendant no.3 Dr. Anakin Skywalker does not liable for
sharing confidential information, technical know-how, trade secrets and unfair
competition as [3.1] there was not a breach of confidential information [3.2] Spring
25
The Patents Act, 1970, § 64 (f)
Page 21 of 26
Board Doctrine [3.3] Defendant no.3 Dr. Anakin Skywalker obey the rule of Non-
Disclosure Agreement [3.4] Exception to Non-Disclosure Agreement.
3.1 THERE WAS NOT A BREACH OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
35. According to Section 2(3) of The National Innovation Act, 2008, “Confidential
Information” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program
device, method, technique, or process, that:
(a) is secret in that it is not, as a body or in the precise configuration and assembly of
its components, generally known among or readily accessible to persons within the
circles that normally deal with the kind of information in question;
(b) has commercial value because it is secret; and
(c) has been subject to reasonable steps under the circumstances by the person lawfully
in control of the information, to keep it secret.
36. Confidential Information shall not be deemed to have been misappropriated where:
(a) the confidential information was available in the public domain; or
(b) the confidential information has been independently derived by the alleged
misappropriator, or by any third party from whom the alleged misappropriator
received the information; or
(c) where disclosure of the confidential information is held to be in public interest by a
court of law. 26
37. The information regarding Kyber Crystal and its air purifying qualities were already in
public domain as it was known to the people of Tatooine and has been elaborately
discussed in the ancient texts of Tatooine. Further, since its inception, Palpatine
Galactic Empires has worked relentlessly towards mitigating the impact of bad quality
of air in Tatooine and it has introduced a series of products based on Kyber Crystal. The
R & D unit of Palpatine GE ‘Darth Sidious’ studies and seeks to find out new ways of
26
The Indian Innovation Act, 2008, § 11
Page 22 of 26
utilizing air purification properties of Kyber Crystal.27 Thus, the information does not
constitute ‘confidential information’. No exclusivity could be claimed over information
which is in public domain.
3.2 SPRING BOARD DOCTRINE
38. The Spring Board Doctrine was established to safeguard trade secrets. It is evident that
the doctrine prevents a person to get benefitted from the breach of an information that
he had received in confidence. However, this may not be true for all times because it
may also be taken into consideration how much time has elapsed since he received the
information and what is the nature and extent of publication of this information by him.
Lord Denning M R observed, “Although a man must not use such information as spring-
board to get a start over others, nevertheless the spring-board does not last forever. If
he does use it, a time may come when so much has happened that he can no longer be
restrained.” 28
3.3 DEFENDANT NO.3 ANAKIN SKYWALKER OBEY THE RULE OF NON-

DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT (NDA)
39. A ‘Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)’ or ‘Confidentiality Agreement (CA)’ is an

agreement between two or more parties whereby one party agrees not to disclose or use
information it receives from the other party.
3.3.1 EXCEPTIONS TO NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT (NDA)

There are certain exception of Non-Disclosure Agreement which are as follows:
40. When the information is in public domain and constitutes traditional knowledge
of the indigenous people of region:
In the matter of American Express Bank Ltd. v. Ms. Priya Puri 29, the bank had filed
a suit against their ex-employee for breach of the confidentiality clause by sharing
information of potential customers with competitors. However, the bank failed to prove
27
28
Potters Ballotini v. Weston Baker, (1977) RPC 202
29
(2006)III LLJ 540(Del)
Page 23 of 26
its case, because it was held that basic information of these potential clients, was
information available in the public domain. Hence, the confidentiality clause signed by
the ex-employee protected her from being sued due to the exemptions to confidentiality.
41. The information is known to the recipient before singing the NDA (Non-Disclosure
Agreement)
If the recipient is aware of a certain information before signing the NDA (non-disclosure
agreement), such information does not fall under the label of confidential
information. In the current case, the scientist Dr. Skywalker was a native of Tatooine.
As such, he was very much aware of the substance and its air filtration qualities and its
application as air filtration device in Tatooine.
42. The Defendant No. 3 Dr. Anakin Skywalker being the scientist of Tatooine nationality
was also aware of the substance Kyber Crystal and its air purifying qualities as it was
already in public domain. When Dr. Anakin came to know about the constantly
degrading air quality of Tatooine and the unavailability of any of the environmental
products of Jedi Corporation including Lightsaber, he decided to leave his employment
at Jedi Corporation and work in his native country for its welfare.
43. Tatooine was a lower-middle income country. The non-availability of Lightsaber in

Tatooine was due to exclusionary effect of Jedi’s patented environmental inventions
which were exclusively manufactured for and exported to the markets of high-income
countries only.
44. The extreme bad air quality of Tatooine compelled Dr. Anakin to join the Palpatine GE
of his native country Tatooine for its welfare for developing technology that would help
in averting the environmental catastrophe and after two years of extensive research, it
introduced a device under the name ‘Darksaber’ that could be used to purify air over
large areas including open spaces.
45. As per the Constitution of Tatooine Article 51A (g) of Fundamental Duty states that,
“It shall be duty of every citizen of Tatooine to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for
living creatures.” Article 21 of the Constitution of Tatooine states that “Right to Live
in Pollution free Environment” is a fundamental right. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of
Page 24 of 26
India30, the Supreme Court treated the right to live in pollution free environment as a
part of fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
46. In Subhash Kumar v. State. of Bihar31, the Supreme Court held that right to life is a
fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution and it include the right to enjoyment
of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or
impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws a citizen has recourse to Art.32 of the
Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to life.
47. Therefore, on the basis of above averment it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble
Court that the Defendant No.3 Dr. Anakin Skywalker is not liable for sharing
confidential information, technical knowhow, trade secrets and unfair competition.
30
AIR 1987 SC 1086
31
(1991) 1 SCC 598
Page 25 of 26
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the facts, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it
is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to
adjudge, hold and declare:
1. The Patent granted to the plaintiff is invalid.
2. The defendant no. 2 has not infringed the patent of the plaintiff.
3. Non-Disclosure Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant no. 3 is not violated.
4. Revoke the patent granted to the Plaintiff.
5. And/or pass any other order that it may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity, and good
conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted.
All of which is Respectfully Submitted
TC- 34
(Counsel on behalf of the Defendant)
Page 26 of 26

Versus: Page 1 of 26

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Versus: Page 1 of 26

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

Versus: Page 1 of 26

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10TH MAHAMANA MALAVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023 TC-34

TEAM CODE- TC-34

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KASHI

CIVIL SUIT NO. ………………………… OF 2023

(Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

IN THE MATTER OF:

JEDI CORPORATION ………… (PLAINTIFF)

1- GOVERNMENT OF TATOOINE ………… (DEFENDANT NO. 1)

2- PALPATINE GALACTIC EMPIRES ………… (DEFENDANT NO. 2)

3- DR. ANAKIN SKYWALKER ………… (DEFENDANT NO. 3)

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………………………………………….5

STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………………………………….……...8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ………………………………………………………….11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ……………………………………………………………..13

I: WHETHER THE PATENT GRANTED TO THE PLAINTIFF IS VALID OR

II: WHETHER THE DEVICE INTRODUCED BY DEFENDANT PALPATINE

2.1 Infringement of Patent of The Plaintiff Product/Device…………………….…..19

2.2 Rights of Patentee……………………………………………………..…………20

III: WHETHER DEFENDANT NO. 3 DR. ANAKIN SKYWALKER IS LIABLE FOR

3.1 There was not a Breach of Confidential Information ………………………………22

3.2 Spring Board Doctrine……………………………………………………………....23

3.3.1 Exceptions to Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)……………………….23

AIR All India Reporter

SL. CASE NAME CITATION PAGE NO.

1. Monsanto Co. v. Coromandal Indag AIR 1986 S.C. 712 15

2. Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. (1972) 2 SCC 511 16

4. American Express Bank Ltd. v. Ms. Priya (2006)III LLJ 540(Del) 23

5. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086 24

6. Subhash Kumar v. State. of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598 25

SL. CASE NAME CITATION PAGE NO.

 THE PATENTS ACT, 1970

 THE PATENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS – LAWS AMD PRACTICES, THE INSTITUTE

 THE PARIS CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY,

2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach.—(1) In any suit for restraining

1. Republic of Tatooine, a lower-middle income country with high population density is

7. Tatooine based Palpatine GE is an environmental products company whose R&D unit

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PATENT GRANTED TO THE PLAINTIFF IS VALID?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DEVICE INTRODUCED BY THE DEFENDANT

ISSUE 3: WHETHER DEFENDANT NO. 3 DR. SKYWALKER LIABLE FOR

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PATENT GRANTED TO THE PLAINTIFF IS VALID?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DEVICE INTRODUCED BY THE DEFENDANT

ISSUE 3: WHETHER DEFENDANT NO. 3 DR. SKYWALKER LIABLE FOR SHARING

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PATENT GRANTED TO THE PLAINTIFF IS VALID?

1.1 THE PRODUCT OF THE PLAINTIFF COMES UNDER THE

3. Moreover, the Patent is an official document given to an inventor by the Government

1.2. THE PRODUCT OF PLAINTIFF DOES NOT FOLLOW THE CRITERIA

1.2.1. THE PRODUCT OF PLAINTIFF DOES NOT FOLLOW THE

8. Thus, an invention is considered as new if it is not anticipated by prior publication, prior

1.2.2. THE PRODUCT OF PLAINTIFF DOES NOT FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE

1.2.3. THE PRODUCT OF PLAINTIFF DOES NOT FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE

1.3 SECTION 3 (D) OF THE PATENTS ACT, 1970 IS APPLICABLE ON

As noted, the said section is divided in to four categories i.e.,

 “mere discovery of a new form of a known substance, or

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DEVICE INTRODUCED BY THE DEFENDANT