It was next stated that the first plaintiff had permitted the second plaintiff to work the patents from 1971 onwards under an agreement dated September 3, 1980.
The annual report of the International Rice Research Institute for 1969 shows that the herbicide CP 53619 came to acquire the name of Butachlor.
104120 , it was claimed We Claim A phytotoxic companyposition companyprising as an active ingredient a companypound of the formula shown in Figure 1 of the accompanying drawings, wherein R1 and R2 are alkyl of alkoxy having from 1 to 10 carbon atoms, R3 is halogen, alkyl or alkoxy having from 1 to 10 carbon atoms, n is an integer from 0 to 3, A is oxygen or sulfur, X is chlorine, bromine or iodine, and Z,Z1 and Z2 are hydrogen, alkyl, alkoxy,alkenyl or alkynyl having from 1 to 18 carbon atoms, aryl having from 6 to 24 carbon atoms, heterocyclyl having a miximum of 24 carbon atoms and from 1 to 3 hetero atoms, or two of Z groups are companybined to form a bivalent alkylene radical having from 1 to 6 carbon atoms in admixture with an adjuvant such as herein described, the active ingredient in the said companyposition being present in an amount of at least 0.1 per cent by weight.
The plaintiffs used for an injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing their Patents Numbers 104120 and 125371 by the manufacture or sale of the infringing formulations as companytained in this marked as M.O.Nos.
The formulations of the defendant were sent to Shri Ram Institute for analysis and they were said to companytain the chemical Butachlor Chemical formula for which is 2 Chloro 2 6 Diethyl N Butoxymethyl Acatanilide.
The legend on the tins was as follows Delchor 50 Composition Butachlor 50E.C. Butachlor 50 W W Herbicide Solvents and Emulsifiers 50 W W According to the plaintiffs, the legend on the tins companytaining the substance manufactured by the defendants showed that what was sold by the defendants was numberhing but a reproduction of the first plaintiffs patented formulations.
The first plaintiff is the Monsanto Company and the second plaintiff is a subsidiary of the first plaintiff registered as a Company in India.
The second plaintiff had been manufacturing and marketing formulations according to the Patents Numbers 104120 and 125381 and a specimen tin companytaining formulations produced by the second plaintiff according to the said two patents and sold in the market by the second plaintiff was produced along with the plaint as O.I. It came to the numberice of the plaintiffs, it was averred, that the defendant was attempting to market a formulation of Butachlor companyered by the said patents.
It was stated in the plaint that the first plaintiff was the patentee of inventions entitled PHYTOTOXIC COMPOSITIONS and GRASS SELECTIVE HERBICIDE COMPOSITIONS, duly patented under patent number 104120 dated March 1, 1966 and 125381 dated February 20, 1970.
2 and The Plaintiffs also asked for an account etc.
They, therefore, wrote to the defendant drawing their attention to the existence of the patents in their favour.
Some companyrespondence ensued.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.2.1984 of the Madras High Court in O.S.A. No.
In the specification relating to Phytotoxic Composition Specification No.
Chellaswamy, N.H. Hingorani, Mrs. Kapila Hingorani, Mrs. Rekha Pandey and D. Sadasivan for the Appellants.
ha a.i.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
S. Nariman, M.K. Rao, P.N. Ramalingam and A.T.M. Sampath for the Respondent.
In the second week of May, 1981, the second plaintiff found that the defendant was marketing formulation of Butachlor companyered by the patents of the first plaintiff.
A Scientist Dr. John Olin discovered CP53619 with the formula 2 Chlore 2,6 Diethyl N Butoxy Methyl Acetanilide which satisfied the requirement of a weed killer which had numbertoxic effect on rice.
Annexed to the plaint were the two specifications relating to Patent Numbers 104120 and 125381.
Sample tins of Butachlor 50 manufactured by the defendant were purchased by the plaintiffs and were produced along with the plaint as M.O.s 3 and 4.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The long and grasping hand of a Multi National Company, the Monsanto Company of St. Lous, Missouri, United States of America, has reached out to prevent alleged infringement of two of their patents Numbers 104120 and 125381 by the defendant, an Indian Private Limited Company.
The annual report of the International Rice Research Institute for 1968 state, Weed companytrol in rice was an important part of the Agronomy program.
The claims and the particulars relating to the inventions were stated to be companytained in the specifications of the two patents annexed to the plaint as annexure I and II.
appeard at least twice among the 20 best treatments and the most outstanding new pre emergence herbicide was 2 chloro 2, 6 diethyl N butoxymethyl acetanilide CP 53619 .
The suit was decreed by the trial companyrt, but was dismissed by the appellate companyrt.
Though the suit, as initially laid, was with reference to two patents, the suit was ultimately companyfined to one patent only Number 125381 , the period for which the other patent 104120 was valid having expired during the pendency of the suit.
A companyposition as claimed in claim 1, which further companyprises one or more companypounds selected from the following companyventional pesticides, fertilizers, and extenders such as herein described.
Another new accession, CP53619, gave excellent weed companytrol in transplanted flooded and number flooded, upland rice.
217 of 1982.
1490 of 1984.
The first agronomic evidence of the efficacy of granular trichloroethyl styrene for the selective companytrol of annual grasses in transplanted rice was obtained at the Institute.
For long the research was futile.
It was further stated CP53619 at 2 and 4 k.g.
a 2,6 diethyl N butoxymethyl alpha chloroaceta nilide, and b 2, 6 diethyl N 2 butoxyethyl alpha chloro acetanilide, or a mixture of a and b in admixture with one or more diluents or carriers and surface active agents in which an emulsion is obtained by dissolving the active ingredient in an organic solvent and thereafter dispereing the solution in another liquid medium in the presence of an emulsifying agent such as herein described.
On these averments, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had infringed their Patents Numbers 104120 and 125381 by selling formulations companyered by them.
After stating so much the plaintiffs said, and this is very important, THE ACTIVE INGREDIENT MENTIONED IN THE CLAIM IS CALLED BUTACHLOR.
