A case brief is a breakdown of a judicial opinion and contains a summary of the major components of a decision in a court of law (lib.jjay.cuny.edu). In this case the appellant (Monsanto Company) had instituted a suit against the respondent (Coramandal Indag Products) on the ground that the company’s invention “Phytotoxic Compositions” and “Grass Selective Herbicide Compositions” fully patented and with “Butachlor” as an active ingredient was contravened by the respondent while marketing “Delchor-50” a “Butacholr” formulation that was claimed to be part of the appellant patent No 125381. From the respondent written submission, they alleged that the patents were revocable under section 64(1) of the Patents Act 1970. In the trial court the suit was decreed but in the appellant court the suit was dismissed (indiankanoon.org).
The major duty for the learned counsel was to decide, based on a legal opinion when a patent is liable for revocation, if it is an invention when publically known, what is required of a patent, when is a patent satisfied, whether emulsification is an invention, if the active ingredient “Butacholar” is contained in the Herbicide Formulations and whether the active ingredient can be enfolded in a specification relating to a patent product (rishabhdara.com).
The court held that a patent can be revoked if an invention as may be claimed is not new, with regards to what is publically known or used in India before the claim date. It also held that the common name for CP53619 was “Butacholar” and was discovered before 1968 as a Herbicide with a non-toxic effect on rice and that emulsification is not a discovery since it is a well-known process (indiankanoon.org).
The judgment was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY. Though the suit was initially with reference to two patents it was confined to one patent after one of the patent validity expired when the suit was in progress. The appeal had been filed in pursuant to a certificate awarded by the appellate bench of the High Court on grounds that there was involvement of substantial questions of large public importance (indiankanoon.org). The question was not specified in the certificate and the bench was unable to get substantial questions of large importance in law and held that “We are afraid both the lower courts misdirected themselves and missed the real substance of the dispute and found themselves chasing the mirage of legal questions which did not strictly arise” ( rishabhdara.com).