AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.P.S. Parmar, Technical Member
This revocation application under Section 64 of the Patent Act 1970 has been filed by Mr. V.R. Prasad, Managing Partner, M/s. The Travancore
Mats & Matting Co for revocation of patent No. 206494 granted to Mr. Kollekattu Joseph Scaria. The patent is for the invention entitled ""A method of
making coir tufted rubber mats"".
The applicant has also filed an MP/37/2009 for seeking directions from the Board to direct respondent 2 and his assignees not to take any step in
respect of and on the basis of patent No 206494 pending disposal of the revocation application.
This patent relates to a method of making coir tufted rubber mats. Claims of the invention are reproduced below:
1 . The process of making coir tufted rubber mats in rolls, by tufting perpendicularly the evenly cut coir yarn into a soft flexible sheeted rubber
compound obtained through mixing of natural rubber, synthetic rubber, reclaimed rubber, rubber chemicals fillers and process oil, in a kneader machine
or in a mixing mill OR by mixing rubber latex, rubber chemicals, fillers and hardener in a planetary moving agitator.
2 . The process and method as claimed in claim No. 1 above, wherein the rubber compound is vulcanized in the heating chamber of the lifting machine
at a temperature ranging from 100oC to 150oC.
The process and method as claimed in claim No. 1 and 2 above whereby the coir tufted rubber mat in roll are produced.
4 . The method and process of producing coir tufted rubber mat in roll as claimed in any of the preceding claims.
The cause of action of the said application arose on November 21, 2007 when the revocation Petition SBJC No. 4 of 2007 was filed by the
Petitioner before the Honorable Kerala High Court on November 22, 2007. The learned Single Judge of the Honorable Kerala High Court, had, on
June 16, 2008, through an order of transfer in SPJC No. 4 of 2007 transferred to this Board. However, this Board dismissed the application No
TRA/8/2008/PT/CH vide its order dated 8th September 2009 granting liberty to file fresh application for revocation before the Board following which
the applicant has filed this application.
The matter came up before us on 1.2.2012. Learned counsel Shri R. Umashankar appeared for the Applicants and Shri R. Jeevanandam appeared
for the Respondents 2-5.
Applicant case:
6 . The counsel for the applicant contended that ""this patent was granted on the application of a person not entitled under the provisions of the Patent
Act to apply. Therefore, as per Section 64 of the Patents Act, application for a patent can be made, inter alia, only by a person claiming to be the true
and first inventor of the invention. He submitted that the patent was obtained wrongly in contravention of the right of the Applicant as the process of
manufacture of coir tufted rubber mats was within the knowledge of the public and publicly used in India before the priority date of the claim made by
the 2nd respondent. He submitted that the subject of the claim of complete specifications in this patent is not an invention within the meaning of the
term under Patents Act 1970 and the invention so far as claimed in the specification is not new, having regard to what was publicly known and used in
India before the priority date of the claim. Further the invention so far as claimed in the claim of complete specification in this Patent is obvious and
does not involve any inventive step having regard to what was publicly known and used in India. The act of the 2nd respondent in applying for and
obtaining a patent for 'a method of making coir tufted rubber mats' is wholly illegal so far as while the process of making rubber tufted coir brush mats
were known to the trade earlier and hence not an inventive step.
The Counsel for the applicant relied on the following grounds
(a) 2nd respondent obtained patent on a false representation and moreover the 2nd respondent failed to disclose to the 1st respondent material facts
that were relevant for a consideration of his eligibility to such a patent. Relevant facts such as the existence of a process of manufacture of coir tufted
rubber mats and the fact of manufacture and sale of such mats in the trade were not disclosed.
(b) The process of Patent obtained by the 2nd respondent is neither the outcome of any invention of the patentee nor its formula and use were not
unknown to the public even before the grant of patent.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the recognition of a patent in respect of 'method of making coir tufted rubber mats' in favor of the 2nd
respondent and its assignees, to the exclusion of all others, would cause irreparable loss and injury to the applicant's company which has been
manufacturing and marketing such products for decades. Hence the revocation petition may be allowed.
Respondents response:
The Counsel for the respondent Shri. R. Jeevanandam submitted that ""prior to the introduction of the products manufactured by way of the patent in
the market, the coir mats available were mostly PVC tufted coir mats which were made using liquid compounded PVC and sized coir bits. These mats
were not eco-friendly and also did not possess anti-skid properties. Apart from the PVC tufted mats, there were rubber tufted coir mats also available
in the market, which were made using moulds of a definite size and shape. These mats had several deficiencies, for example, the top of the yarn of
these rubber tufted coir mats used to cut off from the bottom portion and this resulted in loss of grip. Compared to the conventional method for
producing coir tufted rubber mats, the patent has far superior productivity, almost 100 times more than the other methods/processes, resulting in lower
cost. Also, the coir fiber of the coir yarn in such mats used to loosen and shed away. Though the said rubber tufted mats were considered to be eco-
friendly and anti-skid, they faced serious defects as detailed above. In order to create a product which could overcome all such deficiencies, the
patentee invented, upon extensive search, development and testing, a novel and exclusive process for manufacture of high quality coir tufted rubber
mats which is the subject matter of the Patent. The said tufted rubber mats are manufactured by embedding straight and evenly cut coir fiber from the
coir yarn to rubber compounded sheets. The mats produced by using this novel process, can be cut into any desired shape and size and no mould or
hydraulic press is required to manufacture the same. The Product is eco-friendly and consists of superior characteristics such as assured durability,
uniform quality, low cost and can be produced in any shape/size desired by a customer. The novel process involved and the superior characteristics of
the Product which have evolved through this process clearly demonstrate the inventive step involved in the Patent.
There have been several traditional methods of manufacturing coir tufted mats in existence for more than 30 years in countries such as USA,
Germany, France, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Turkey, India etc. and there is no evidence of a process/method such as mentioned in the Patent, found
anywhere else in the world. This, by itself, proves the non-obviousness of the subject invention.
It may be true that there is a possibility that there are 'similarly placed persons' interested in the coir tufted rubber mats manufacturing sector and
who have been involved in the same, in Kerala, for a long time, patentee's claim is solely over the novel process of manufacturing coir tufted rubber
mats which was conceived by him. This novel process has succeeded in removing the defects which were found in the mats produced by other
manufacturers in the market. The fact that there have been several patents granted for processes/products relating to coir mats, by itself, is a proof
that there are plenty of innovations possible in the field of manufacture of coir mats. Thus, the allegation put forth by the Petitioner in paragraph 7 does
not hold water and ought to be dismissed.
11 . The improvement in technology reflected in the process involved in the manufacture of the product, the characteristics and features of the product
over other coir mats present in the market and technologies used prior to the Patent, are unmistakably clear. The mats which were in existence,
before the Patent was devised by the patentee, were taken into consideration and studied in detail in order to invent a novel process which would
overcome the defects found in the mats manufactured using earlier methods. A proper understanding of the process involved in the Patent and the
novelty of the invention would make it clear that this Petition is frivolous, mala fide and untenable.
This patent is for a method of making a mat using vertically oriented cut piles of coir yarn embedded in a durable slip resistant runner/latex
backing, which is ideal for a doormat. The method of cutting coir yarn into bits and embedding the same into PVC has been in existence for more than
30 years in countries like USA, Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Turkey etc. The same is even mentioned in the complete specification
accompanying the application of the Patent. But there has been no known successful attempt to convert the backing from extremely harmful PVC to
an eco-friendly/bio-degradable Rubber compound. The Patent is first of its kind to successfully utilize parts of the PVC tufting apparatus, with due
modification and skillfully combine the same, using the art of formation with a suitable rubber compound which is flexible enough to handle both dry
and wet rubber based rubber compounds. The allegation of prior knowledge/use made by the Petitioner has not been substantiated and hence the
allegation is baseless and false.
1 3 . The Petition and the Miscellaneous Petition accompanying the same do not contain any substantial objections nor are supported by any relevant
documentary proof or evidence Thus, the onus of establishing invalidity of a Patent lies on the party seeking to revoke the patent and this has been laid
down in several cases. The Petitioner has not put forth any valid submissions in support of his petition for revoking the Patent. The onus lies on the
Petitioner to validate its contentions and it has failed to do the same.
It is humbly prayed before the Honorable Board that the revocation Petition along with the Miscellaneous Petition be dismissed and exemplary
costs be awarded to the Respondents.
1 5 . During the hearing, the Counsel for the applicant argued the case without substantiating it with any supporting documents to prove the prior public
knowledge and public use. No documentary evidence in support of anticipation and obviousness was provided.
The counsel for respondent 2 argued that in case, the Petitioner possessed any evidence to demonstrate his allegations; he would have included the
same in the Petition. The fact that there are no substantial allegations proves that the Petitioner does not have any worthwhile submission to elaborate
its allegations. The allegations are unsupported by legal and/or technical merits and also not substantiated by any documentary evidence. Though the
petitioner alleges that there are mats similar to the Product already existing in the market, the Petitioner has failed to produce any documentary
evidence in support of the same. Since no material evidence was submitted and hence no cause of action for revocation arises and the said petition
may be dismissed with costs.
17 . It is trite law that person who seeks revocation must prove it. The onus of proving invalidation of a patent is on the applicant. The applicant in this
case failed miserably to prove his case. Mere allegation is not sufficient to dislodge a validly granted patent. We find no reasonable ground to interfere
with the grant of the patent. The revocation application ORA/44/2009/PT/CH along with the Miscellaneous Petition No. 37/2009 in
ORA/44/2009/PT/CH is therefore dismissed with costs.