This case involves a dispute over patent infringement concerning a technology for detecting inclusions in gemstones. Galatea Ltd., an Israeli company, alleges that the defendants, Diyora and Bhanderi Corporation, have infringed its patent (Patent No. IN271425). The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or using machines that allegedly incorporate patented technology.

Background:
Galatea Ltd. developed a patented technology that automates the detection of inclusions in gemstones. The technology uses a specialized immersion medium and software to enhance the clarity and value of gemstones. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants unlawfully replicated this technology, thereby infringing their patent rights.

The case was originally filed in the District Court, Surat, and later transferred to the Commercial Court at Vadodara before being renumbered and brought to the High Court of Gujarat.

Brief Facts of the Case:

Plaintiffs:

• Galatea Ltd. and its subsidiary, based in Israel, hold Patent No. IN271425, which automates the detection of inclusions in gemstones.

Defendants:

• Diyora and Bhanderi Corporation, along with others, are alleged to have manufactured and sold machines using similar technology.

Allegation:

• The plaintiffs accused the defendants of:
  • Using patented technology without authorization.
  • Selling machines that infringe the patent.
  • Providing gemstone scanning services using infringing machines.

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the defendants' machines infringe Patent No. IN271425.
2. Whether the plaintiffs have a prima facie case for granting a temporary injunction.
3. Whether the defendants' activities harm the plaintiffs' business and goodwill.
4. Validity of the patent in light of defendants' claims of prior art and lack of novelty.

Submissions of the Parties:

Plaintiffs' Submissions:

• The patented technology is novel and revolutionized the diamond industry.
• Defendants' machines incorporate essential features of the patented technology.
• Presence of selenium residue in tested diamonds indicates use of the patented process.
• Defendants' actions are deliberate and aimed at unjust enrichment.

Defendants' Submissions:

• Denied allegations of infringement and claimed independent development of their technology.
• Asserted that the patent lacks novelty and is subject to revocation proceedings.
• Claimed no use of bubble prevention technology, which is a core element of the patent.
• Argued that the suit was filed to create monopolistic barriers and disrupt their business.

Reasoning and Analysis by the Court:
The court examined the scope and claims of the patent, particularly the novelty of the bubble prevention mechanism. The defendants argued that their machines do not use bubble prevention technology, which is a critical aspect of the patent. Mere presence of Selenium in the Defendants machine does not prove infringement as selenium has been disclaimed by the plaintiff in FER proceeding. 

The entire foundation of the plaintiffs' suit rested on the contention that Selenium residue was found in the gemstones processed by the defendants' machines, and that the defendants were using Selenium in their inclusion detection process. However, the court noted that the Suit Patent itself was not granted for the use of Selenium. In fact, the plaintiffs had filed a separate patent application specifically for the use of Selenium, which was distinct from the patent in question (Suit Patent No. IN271425).

Core Invention of the Suit Patent:
The court emphasized that the pith and marrow of the Suit Patent lay in the apparatus or device that enabled the removal of gas bubbles from the immersion medium. This apparatus was considered the essence of the invention and the primary claim under the Suit Patent. The court observed that unless this specific apparatus or mechanism was copied or used by the defendants, it would not prima facie constitute infringement of the Suit Patent.

Failure to Prove Infringement:
The plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate, on a prima facie basis, that the defendants' machines incorporated the key claims of the Suit Patent, particularly claims 1 and 18. These claims pertain to the specific device and method for bubble removal, which is central to the Suit Patent's novelty and inventive step.

The plaintiffs also failed to provide evidence that the defendants' machines utilized the same bubble removal technology or apparatus. The presence of Selenium in the defendants' machines or processes was insufficient to establish infringement, as the Suit Patent did not claim the use of Selenium as part of its invention.

Disclaimed Use of Selenium:
The court further highlighted that Selenium is a chemical element and its use alone does not constitute a patented invention under the Suit Patent. The Assistant Controller of Patents, in the process of granting the Suit Patent, had expressly noted that the plaintiffs had disclaimed the use of Selenium in their patent claims. Thus, the presence of Selenium in the defendants' machines, even if proven, did not amount to an infringement of the Suit Patent.

Injunction Refused:
Given these findings, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case for infringement. The court noted that the entire plaint was based on the use of Selenium by the defendants, which was not a protected aspect of the Suit Patent. Consequently, the court refused to grant the requested injunction, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendants' machines infringed upon the specific claims or the core inventive features of the Suit Patent.

Conclusion:
The refusal of the injunction underscores the court's reliance on the specific claims of the patent and the necessity for plaintiffs to establish a clear connection between the defendants' actions and the patented invention. The presence of Selenium, unconnected to the patent claims, was insufficient to support the plaintiffs' case for infringement.

Case Title: Galatea Ltd. vs. Diyora and Bhanderi Corporation
Date of Order: March 26, 2018
Case Number: Civil Suit No. 2 of 2017
Court:High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad
Judge:Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Chhaya

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539