Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson(PUBL) v. Mercury Electronics & Micromax Informatics Ltd.
I.A. No. 15542 of 2013
CS(OS) NO. 442 of 2013
before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Decided on: 06.12.2013
The Plaintiffs filed a suit for infringement of patent. Later, the Plaintiffs filed an application to bring on record an additional affidavit, which had the claim chart mapping of the impugned patents. The same was vehemently contested by Defendant on the grounds that:
- The Plaintiffs have failed to construe each of the suit patent claims in the body of the plaint itself.
- In a suit for infringement of patent, it was mandatory to set out the claims in detail under the patents and to explain whether the patent covered a particular component, device, etc.
- Merely describing the function of each patent is insufficient.
- The affidavit should not be permitted to taken on record as it would amount to indirectly permitting the plaint to be amended to make good an obvious defect.
- Reliance was placed on Marsden v. Albrecht and Abrecht, The Read Corporation and F.T. Read & Sons, Inc. v. Portec Inc., Rodi & Wienenberger A.G. v. Henry Showell Limited and Lallubhai Chakubahi Jariwala v. Chimanlal Chunilal and Co. to contend that the law as laid down in the above decisions is that the plaint itself must set out with sufficient clarity the specifications and the claims under the suit patent, the results they seek to achieve and in what manner the Defendants have infringed the suit patents.
The question that loomed large before the Hon’ble Court was:
Whether the plaint when read along with the documents filed with the plaint, satisfies the law as laid down in the above mentioned cases.
The Plaintiffs’ stand was that the claim chart mapping in the affidavit was prepared from the material already on record and nothing new was sought to be added. The counsel for the Defendant was unable to show the Hon’ble Court that the claim chart mapping was not substantiated by the documents filed by the Plaintiffs.
The Hon’ble Court held that in order to satisfy the requirements of a Plaintiff’s case, not only the plaint but the documents filed with the plaint have to be examined. There may be a volume of documents and it may not be practicable to set out all the details in the plaint itself and as the counsel for the Defendant was unable to suggest that the claim chart mapping was not substantiated by the documents filed by the Plaintiffs, it was not possible to accept the plea that the plaint, read with the documents filed with it does not meet the requirement of Plaintiffs having to construe the claims under the suit patent.
The application was thus allowed and the right of the Defendant to challenge the veracity of the affidavit was reserved.