Intellectual Property Rights

1. Patent Rights Violations
Group no: 02

2. Manufacturing Paper using Elephant Dung
● Maximus (Pvt) Limited vs. Muhandiram Ralalage Shantha.
● The plaintiff filed the action against the owner of the patent bearing No. 11440 relating to
manufacturing handmade paper using elephant dung.
● Complaint:
- The defendant has copied its patented invention for commercial purposes
- The defendant argues that there was no novelty in the alleged invention therefore seeks a declaration
that the said patent is null and void.
● Judgers identified that there was no novelty of invention.
● Judgment:
- Dismissed the plaintiff’s action with costs, and also declare that the patent No. 11440 is null and
void.

3. Alice vs. CLS Bank
● Alice Crop vs. CLS Bank international in 2014 related to;
- Whether certain claims about a computer-implemented, electronic escrow service for assisting financial
transactions covered abstract ideas are ineligible for patent protection.
- Alice opinion did not mention software as such, the case was widely considered as a decision on software
patents or patents on software for business methods.
● The district court declared each of Alice’s patents invalid ruling that the claims concerned abstract ideas,
which are not eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
● Alice appealed the decision at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
● Judgement:
- Seven of the ten judges upheld the district court’s decision that Alice’s method claims and computer-readable
medium claims were not patent-eligible, The panel as a whole did not agree on a single standard to determine
whether a computer-implemented invention is a patent-ineligible abstract idea.

4. Bajaj Auto Limited Vs TVS Motor Company
● TVS Motor Company was involved in the lawsuit over the unauthorized application and use of patented
Digital Twin Spark Ignition technology.
● DTSi was the intellectual property of BAJAJ Auto Limited (Plaintiff).In 2007, the plaintiff filed a case in the
Madras High Court against the indicted for infringing on the patent and sought a endless injunction under
Section 108 of the Act.
● The High Court granted the complainant a temporary instruction and advised the defendant that they could
execute the asked orders but couldn't take any new orders for vehicles using this technology.
● Judgment: The High Court, using the principle of equivalency, stated that in order to establish an ambitious
construction with the aim of determining innovative elements, it must be made available as an essential
requirement for invention that adopts any variant outside the monopoly.

5. Weniwalgata Patent(Biopiracy)
● According to Marsoof, "serious biopiracy" threatens Sri Lanka (2010). According to
Bengwayan, global pharmaceutical corporations are taking chemicals from indigenous
plants and patenting them in other nations.
● For example, it has been discovered that nineteen different medications have been
manufactured utilizing chemicals found in the Keena tree of Sri Lanka (Gracia,2007)In
1997, the American Chemical Society granted a patent to a Japanese pharmaceutical
business for a product derived from this plant.
● Japanese, European, and American producers have also registered the plant
Weniwelgata, which is used by Sri Lankans to treat fever, coughs, and colds.
● Unfortunately, the current legal structure is woefully inadequate for combating bio piracy.

6. Kumarasena Vs. Data Management Systems
● Plaintiff was the registered owner of the Sinhala word processor. The plaintiff complained
about an infringement of a patent of which he claimed to be the registered owner.
● The defendant filed an application for dissolution of the interim injunction and it was
agreed that the trial and the application for dissolution could be had together.
● At the inquiry he complained that as his losses were very high and the plaintiff was not a
man of means, the security order was insufficient.
● The appeal is allowed to the extent set out above and the order enhancing security made
on 12th February 1987 was set aside.
● There was one order for costs fixed at Rs. 525 payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.

7. Roche Vs. Cipla
Parties of the suit : Swiss multinational health-care company Roche and Indian
multinational pharmaceutical company Cipla.
Facts : Roche company claimed a drug named “Erlotinib” which was sold under the brand
name of TARCEVA. Cipla reported launching of a generic version of Erlotinib. Due to
that Roche initiated an infringement lawsuit against Cipla.
Judgement : Finished in favour of Roche and against Cipla.

8. St. Regis Packaging (Pvt) Ltd v. Ceylon Paper Sacks Ltd
● The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant, alleging that his rights
as that of the registered proprietor of patent No.10694 had been
infringed upon.
● The patent's inventor, one Caderamenpulle, had one problem with the
defendant, and the High Court (Commercial) of Colombo ordered the
Registrar of Patent to add his name in the register after he filed an
action.

9. Cont..
● 10694 for a product known as the 'SAFE T PACK,' a container being used packaging tea
as a cost effective alternative solution to plywood chests, and as 'containers' for export.
● An appeal against a Registrar of Patents and TradeMarks ruling was heard at the High
Court (Commercial) of Colombo
● The case is remanded for further consideration of the plaintiff's plea for an interim
injunction.

10. Quanta Computer, Inc v. LG Electronics, Inc
● LG Electronics owned the patent in this case.
● LGE wants Intel to notify its customers that the license agreement does not extend
the patent on any product created by combining a licensed Intel microprocessor with
another product.
● The Supreme Court found that the jury in Quanta Inc. v. Intel had reached a decision.
● Intel has since filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Quanta.
● The FC decision was overturned by the Supreme Court.

11. Farbridge v. The Registrar of Parents
● The appellant is the patentee of the Ceylon Patent No. 2479 relating to “
Multiflu” tea drier.
● The Patents Ordinance praying that the patent may be extended for a further period of
fourteen years.
● The District Judge found that the invention was not one of more than ordinary utility.
● A decision of the court made under section 28 (1) (3)
● Supreme Court consider whether the petitioner has proved that his invention is of
great practical utility.

12. eBay Inc v MercExchange us 2006
● MercExchange patented a design for an online marketplace in which a single
company provides the responsible framework
● MercExchange brought suit in federal district court alleging patent violation under
the Patent Act.
● The injunction would have forced eBay and Half.com to stop using the contested
framework
● The decision was reversed
● Courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringements absent
exceptional circumstances.

13. Samsung v. Scramoge Technology Limited
● Samsung has infringed 4 patents in wireless charging technology owns by Ireland based
Scramoge Technology.
● Plaintiff has noted that defendant has done several commercial activities like selling,
importing, promoting to worldwide.
● Plaintiff has asked judges in the law to pay them license and for their losses.
● Samsung required to pay Plaintiff for the damages and losses for their past, present and
future activities and a license fee.

14. Apple v. Optis Wireless Technology
● Apple has infringed the wireless standard essentials patent which owned by IP
Management Company Optis Wireless Technology
● Optis Company owns patents related to 3G and 4G LTE technology, user interfaces,
battery management and lots of technologies related to smartphones and laptops.
● Optis have filed lawsuits against the Apple
● Method for improving handovers between mobile communications systems
● Apple had to pay $506.2 million

15. Google v. Sonos Wireless Speakers and Home Sound Systems
● Google have infringed Wireless Smart Speaker technology of Sonos.
● The owner of the trademark had faced losses and damages of sales.
● Google gradually gained the Sonos technology and increased their profits over Sonos
● Google rejected paying license fee and after seven years of waiting Sonos sued Google on
this matter in 2020
● As the final judgment, Google had to pay patent license for Sonos for their damages and
losses and they were banned from importing the infringed products.

16. Apple vs. HTC
● HTC has infringed on 20 Apple patents.
● HTC and its subsidiary products has break the law by copying and going against 10 Apple
patents
● Requested a ban on the import of those infringed products.
● The commission found that HTC has infringed upon one Apple patent and issued a limited
exclusion offer.
● Even if the orders issued by the court to HTC, they still continued to infringe on the
Apple’s patent and again Apple filed a new complaint
● Apple and HTC entered into a global Patent License and settlement.

17. Lab Corporation of America Vs. Metabolite Inc.
❖ Lab Corp v. Metabolite, Inc., is a court case that was linked to the Patentability of scientific
principles.
❖ In 1999, Metabolite took legal action against LabCorp for infringing on a patent covering a
diagnostic test.
❖ A jury ordered LabCorp to pay $ 4.7 million in damages, and the choice was upheld by a federal
court.
❖ But further stated that physicians were directly infringing on Metabolite's patent whenever such
an order was ordered and interpreted
❖ Judgement: In 2012, the Supreme Court heard the case. However, this did not lead to the
revocation of all pharmaceutical patents on the grounds that the inventors "discovered that
certain chemicals interact with the human body as directed by chemistry."

18. Binara Flower Case
❖ In the late 1970s, specific Binum (exactum trivernium) flowers were
exported from Sri Lanka, with minor modifications and later patented by
foreign companies.
❖ One of these patents was granted Maha Binara, which is a version of the
plant that has drooping stems.
❖ Modifications of the local Binara flower were developed outside Sri Lanka
and patents were obtained.
❖ Sri Lankan IPR act, there is no specific protection given for biopiracy
patent violations.
❖ As a result, the value of raw materials such as maha binara falls, and the
motherlanda ability to earn income by supplying that product is
invalidated.

19. Diamond v. Chakrabarty
● This was a case of the United States Supreme Court which dealt with whether organisms that are
genetically modified can be patented
● Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty was a Genetic Engineer who was working for General Electric in United
States
● He introduce Pseudomonas genus Pseudomonas putida bacterium use in the treatment of oil spills.
● The reason behind being that under the patent law at that time not considered as a patentable subject
matter under Section
● Similar extensive terms as “ manufacture”.
● Claim isn't to a yet unknown natural miracle ut to a no naturally being manufacture or composition of
matter

20. Ramawickrama Gamachchige Ravindra vs Riyad Ismail
● The plaintiff:- Ramawickrema Gamachchige Ravindra (A. R. Electronic & Trading “Batapola Stove”)
● The 1st
defendant:- Riyad Ismail “EZ Turbo Charcoal Stove”
● The 2nd
defendant: -Director General of Intellectual Property
● One of the important elements of the invention is supplying primary and secondary air by forced draft
through a detachable grate and regulated by controlling fan speed, electronically with fan speed control
circuit with 12VDC.
● The 1st
defendant’s invention is a patentable invention

21. Kothalahimbutu Case
● Kothalahimbutu is also known as salacia reticulata.
● This endemic indigenous medicine helps to control blood glucose levels.
● Patent based biopiracy has been occured to this plant.
● Japan and USA are the major contributors of biopirating this plant.
● In Sri Lankan IPR act natural biomaterials are not granted.
● At first in 1998 Sri Lanka Customs seized a large stock.
● In 2017 customs seized another large consignment which belonged to Two chinese
nationals.

23. Apple Inc vs. Samsung Electronics Co.
● Apple incorporation filed a lawsuit against Samsung in 2011.
● The reason is the design of smartphones and tablet computers.
● At first jury held that Samsung is liable to Apple over $1Bn due to the infringement.
● After retrial jury held that Samsung is liable to Apple over $300 Mn in damages.
● Though Samsung appealed against the jury decision in district court, it failed.
● There is no final decision for this case.
● This case is remanded for further proceedings by the supreme court of USA.

24. State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group. - 149 F.3d
1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
● “Hub and Spoke” data processing system develop for signature’s business
implementing an investment structure by Signature Financial Group
● The business of acting as custodian and accounting agent for multi-layer partnership
fund financial services
● State Street Bank & Trust Co. discussed with Signature financial Group to licenses
getting partnership for use the patented data processing system

25. ● State Street Bank sued against Signature Financial Group in
Massachusetts district court in 1998(filed a motion for partial
summary judgment of patent invalidity for failure to claim
statutory subject matter)
● The district court granted State Street’s motion for summary
judgment, holding that the patent was invalid one.

26. Enfish LLC vs. Microsoft
● Enfish cooperation was founded in 1993 by the Louise Wannier in california.
● In 2000, 45 employees and $20 million in capital
● Leave from markert in 2005 because of that company not profitable one.
● Wanier Enfish started in 2012 and sued to companies
○ Sage software
○ Microsoft
○ Intuit Inc
○ Jack Henry & Associates Inc
○ Fiserv and Jack Henry

27. Enfish LLC vs. Microsoft
● Microsoft company infringed 2 patents of Enfish .Net Framework patents
mention in this case
● Built a new kind of database that was “self referential” in 1995
● District court didn’t agree and claimed a table was just a table. Terms such as
“Indexing” and “non- contiguous” memory wasn’t enough to save Enfish
patents
● All of the five patent claims became a patentable & this case has been
referred to the lower court

28. Kekatiya case-Customs Court case BPU / CASE 2002 / 9 & 10
● 1500kg of kekatiya bulbs were tried to export without a permit.
● The exporter was the managing director of the Samudra Aquarist Fish Gate (pvt) Itd
in Dehiwala. The packing list - Aponogeton ulvacea Few samples of the bulbs were
sent to the herbarium of the Peradeniya botanical garden
● A.ulvacea is a kekatiya specie which can export without a permit, but A.cripsus
cannot
● Exporter was tried to release his shipment by appeal in appeal court, Finally he could
export 2000kg of kekatiya bulbs The Peradeniya herbarium was certified that the
bulbs are from A. cripsus and not from A.ulvacea. His escapade was successful.

29. O'reilly vs Morse
● In 1837 Samuel Morse submitted a patent application for electromagnetic telegraph.
In his application Morse claimed ownership of a machine operated with magnetics
and two galvanic currents of electricity.
● In 1846 and 1848 the U.S. Patent and trademark office reissued Morse’s patent.
● In 1845 Henry O’reilly installed his own telegraph system in the state of Kentucky
and Tennessee.
● Morse sued Orielly for patent infringement in the united state circuit court The circuit
court upheld the patent validity and found that O'Reilly's telegraph infringed Morse’s
patent .
● O'reilly appealed to the U.S. Supreme court which granted cirt.

30. Bayer Corporation v. Union of India
•This case is about drug "Sorafenib Tosylate".
•Natco Pharma was granted the first ever Compulsory License by the Drug Controller of
India to produce a generic version of this drug.
•Bayer complained to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) for suspending the
license that was granted by the DGCI.
•The IPAB rejected Bayer's appeal. Bayer then challenged the order in Bombay High
Court.
•The HC again dismissed the petition upholding that public interest shall always be
prioritized.

31. Shogun Organics Ltd v. Gaur Hari Guchhait
•Shogun Organics Ltd. (Plaintiff) is a company engaged in mosquito repellent research,
production and sales .
•Manaksia Ltd (Defendant) is a competitor of the plaintiff.
•The Plaintiff (shogun) was granted a patent in 2009.
•The court repeatedly asked that the process used by the defendant be presented.
•However, they failed to submit the same. Although the plaintiff was selling D-trans
Allethrin before the patent was granted, the court dismissed the preconceived notion,
saying that it was not in the public interest because no one could determine the
manufacturing process by simply inspecting the product.

32. Indoco Remedies Ltd v. Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings
•Bristol Myers Squibb was the patent holder and producer of a drug called “Apixaban”.
•Bristol entered Delhi HC in 2019 seeking an ad-interdict against Indoco Remedies for
infringing on their patent and for producing a generic form of the drug "APIXABID".
•In 2020, Indoco went to court seeking permission to sell (58,000) already manufactured
drug strips on ‘public demand’.
•The court rejected Indoco's request to sell the drug, saying there was no evidence that
there was a shortage of Bristol Myers drugs to allow the sale of the generic drug, which
did not prove any compelling reason in the public interest.

33. Ravi Kamal Bali v. Kala Tech. and Ors
•Ravi Kamal Bali (Plaintiff) had been granted a patent in lieu of ‘tamper locks.
•After an investigation, the plaintiff found that the defendants were using and selling
similar products and filed a patent infringement case before Bombay HC.
•The Plaintiff pleaded the Doctrine of Equivalents.
•The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and used the principle of equality
•The court ruled that the two products had the same purpose in comparison, that they
were made of the same material and similar functions, and that a product with a
different construction and construction alone did not mean a new invention

34. References
● Sri Lanka Law Reports. (1987). KUMARASENA v. DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS LTD. COURT OF APPEAL.
● Furtado, R. (2016, September 22). An Overview On The Roche Vs. Cipla Dispute. IPleaders. Retrieved January 7, 2022, from https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-roche-vs-
cipla-dispute/
● Ross, S. (2021, December 29). Samsung vs. Apple: Comparing Business Models (AAPL, SSNLF). Retrieved January 04, 2022, from
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/110315/samsung-vs-apple-comparing-business-models.asp
● Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved January 4, 2022, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-777
● Supreme Court of United States of America. (2016). 15-777 Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. (12/06/2016).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-777_7lho.pdf
● Amarasinghe, K. K. (2018). Bio-piracy and its impact on Biodiversity: A special review on Sri Lankan context. Journal of Environmental Protection , 267–276.
● Dawoodbhoy, Z. (2019, March 26). Why Sri Lanka Urgently Needs Patents To Protect Its Natural Wealth. Retrieved January 9, 2022, from
https://roar.media/english/life/environment-wildlife/ending-biopiracy-sri-lanka.
● BREYER, J. (June .22. 2006).Lab-Corp-of-America-v-Metabolite-Inc. From https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-777_7lho.pdf
● UNCTAD’s Intellectual Property Unit. Diamond v. Chakrabarty from http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html
● Ramawickrama Gamachchige Ravindra vs Riyad Ismail from Ruwan Fernando, High Court Judge Buddhika Illangatilake for the Plaintiff Dinal Philips, P.C. for the 1st
Defendant Written Submissions Tendered to Court on 24.05.2017 (by the Petitioner & (by the 1st Defendant )

35. Cont.
● Commercial High Court – IP Law – judgment on patent rights – manufacturing paper using elephant dung. (2019, July 3). Http://Sladvocacylk.Com/. Retrieved January 4, 2022, from
http://sladvocacylk.com/archives/782
● Alice v CLS Bank. (2021). Www.Greyb.Com. Retrieved January 12, 2022, from
● https://www.greyb.com/famous-patent-infringement-cases/#Aro-Manufacturing-Co-v-Convertible-Top-Replacement-Co-SCOTUS-1961
● Insight.rpxcorp.com. (2022). Retrieved 15 January 2022, from https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/14459336
● Google infringed on 5 patents of audio tech firm Sonos, rules US judge. Business-standard.com. (2022). Retrieved 15 January 2022, from
https://www.business-standard.com/article/technology/google-infringed-on-5-patents-of-audio-tech-firm-sonos-rules-us-judge-121081400901_1.html
● Reardon, M. (2022). Apple sues HTC over iPhone patents. Retrieved 9 January 2022, from https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/apple-sues-htc-over-iphone-patent
● ST. REGIS PACKAGING (PVT) LTD v. CEYLON PAPER SACKS LTD. (2000). LawNet. https://www.lawnet.gov.lk/st-regis-packaging-pvt-ltd-v-ceylon-paper-sacks-ltd/
● Quanta v. LG Electronics, Inc.: The Supreme Court Extends Patent Exhaustion To Patented Methods | News & Resources | Dorsey. (2008). Dorsey.
https://www.dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/2008/06/quanta-v-lg-electronics-inc--the-supreme-court-e__
● LawNet. 2022. FARBRIDGE, Appellant, and THE REGISTRAR OF PATENTS, Respondent. [online] Available at:
https://www.lawnet.gov.lk/farbridge-appellant-and-the-registrar-of-patents-respondent
● Sudisha Mukherji. (2021, April 27). Patent infringement cases in India. Pleaders. Retrieved January 6, 2022, from https://blog.ipleaders.in/patent-infringement-cases-india/
● Kekatiya case - Case study report. (2022). Retrieved 9 January 2022, from https://www.slideshare.net/kasunwijerathna/kekatiya-case-case-study-report
● Software patent examples: Everything you need to know. UpCounsel. (n.d.). Retrieved January 13, 2022, from https://www.upcounsel.com/software-patent-examples#three-2016-cases-that-gave-new-life-to-software-patents
● State St. Bank & TR. co. v. Signature Fin. grp. - 149 f.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Community. (n.d.). Retrieved January 10, 2022, from https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-state-st-bank-tr-co-v-signature-
fin-grp