Monsanto Company by Their Patent Agent, De Penning and Depen v. Coramandal Indag Products LTD - Case Study Example

Monsanto Company by Their Patent Agent, De Penning and Depen v. Coramandal Indag Products LTD Factual Background This case arose from an alleged patent infringement case. The plaintiff in the case was Monsanto, a multinational corporation based in Saint Louis, Missouri. The defendant was an Indian private limited liability company. Monsanto alleged that it owned two patents covering a particular type of herbicide. This herbicide, in general, was manufactured in order to kill weeds without producing toxic effects on rice.

Monsanto had a subsidiary corporation in India, which served as second plaintiff, and argued that the Indian company was producing and selling an herbicide which infringed on its patents.Procedural History Monsanto filed a lawsuit in India seeking both injunctive relief and an account for the infringement of its patents. The trial court decreed and the case was subsequently dismissed by the appellate court. The appellate court, however, certified the case to the Indian Supreme Court on the basis that substantial and complex questions of law were involved.

On review, the Supreme Court disagreed that the questions were substantial, but nonetheless accepted the case to identify and to clarify the real issues presented by the underlying facts.Issues Presented The questions presented are essentially twofold with some subsidiary issues. The first question is whether Monsanto held a patent. The Supreme Court held that there was no patent. A second issue was whether, under the Patents Act 1970, the defendant had a basis to revoke a patent. This issue was comprised of two further issues.

First, under section 64(e) of the Patents Act of 1970, was this process generally known and therefore subject to revocation? The Supreme Court found that this process was generally known. Second, under section 64(1)(f) of the Patents act of 1970, did Monsanto extend and improve this known process by some “inventive step?” The Supreme Court found no evidence of an inventive step and held that revocation was justified in any event.Legal Discussion and Holding The Indian Supreme Court, in addressing the legal merits of the case, seemed rather displeased with the plaintiff.

As an initial matter, there was a complete lack of evidence regarding the infringement claim. The plaintiffs, during cross-examination, admitted that they held no special knowledge and that their patent specifications constituted nothing new. Indeed, their sole allegations were that their patent covered the active ingredient, Butachlor, and that their emulsification process was unique. This agent, however, had been discovered way back in 1967, and it actually predated Monsanto’s patent.

The Indian Supreme Court, therefore, focused on the allegation by Monsanto that Butachlor was covered by its patent specifications. As an initial matter, the name Butachlor was well-known prior to the alleged 1968 patent. Indeed, as stated by the Indian Supreme Court, “Its formula and use had already been made known to the public by the report of the International Rice Research Institute for the year 1968” (Monsanto, 1986). In short, there was no secret process capable of being patented; thus, under section 64(e) the defendants had a legal right to revoke the alleged patent.

In addition, the plaintiff alleged that their emulsification process constituted an improvement adequate to sustain its patent claim. The Indian Supreme Court disagreed, holding that emulsification processes were just as well-known as Butachlor. Thus, under 64(1)(f), the defendant had an additional basis to revoke the alleged patent. In the final analysis, Monsanto sought patent protection for processes that were well-known to those in the business and the industry of herbicides, and they did not make sufficient improvements to those processes to justify an inventive claim of a patent.

The Indian Supreme Court dismissed the case in its entirety. There were no dissenting opinions.