Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 2114 2014 SLD 2114 2014 CLD 897
Sindh High Court
Miscellaneous Appeal No.74 of 2012, decision dated:13-03-2014.
HASAN FEROZ, J
Altaf Ahmed Butt for Appellants. Muhammad Shoaib Razzak for
Respondent.

EARTHFACTOR (PRIVATE) LIMITED through DirectorvsPATENT OFFICE, IPO-PAKISTAN through Controller and 2 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Patents Ordinance (LXI of 2000)-------Ss.7(4)(d), 2(s), 2(t), 8, 21 & 23---Patentable inventions---"Double-number SIM"--- "Novelty" and "invention"---Scope---Subsequent use of a known product or process---Appellant impugned order of Patent Office, Intellectual Property Organization ("IPO"), Pakistan whereby patent application of respondent, for a "double-number SIM" was allowed and patent was granted for the same---Contention of appellant was inter alia that patent application of the respondent neither qualified as an "invention" nor did it qualify as a "process" and/or "produced" within the meanings and scope given in the Patents Ordinance, 2000---Held, that acceptance of patent application of respondent seemed to be a violation of rules, procedure and law applicable thereto---Any invention was patentable if it was new, involved an inventive step, and was capable of industrial application and under S.7(4)(d), for a new or subsequent use of a known product and process, a patent was not to be granted---"Dual" or "Double-number" SIM card was not new to the world and would not fall within the legal as well as the literary definition of the words "invention" and "novelty" and its acceptance as patent would not be in consonance with the principles of law under the Patents Ordinance, 2000---Such technology was already in use in many countries around the world including Pakistan and therefore adhering to the essence of S.7(4)(d) of the Patents Ordinance, 2000, no patent could be granted---If the process of manufacture was already known, such manufacturing could not be called an "invention" and nor any patent could be granted for it and if such patent was already granted, the same could not be allowed to continue---Impugned order whereby patent was granted to the respondent, was set aside---Appeal was allowed, accordingly. Black's Law Dictionary and 1980 CLC 396 rel. AIR 1936 Bombay 99 distinguished. (b) Patents Ordinance, (LXI of 2000)--- ----S. 2(i)---"Invention"---Meaning of---"Invention" was the act of or operation of finding out something new, the process of contriving and producing something not previously known or existing, by the exercise of independent…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492