Monsanto Company by Their Patent Agent, De Penning and Depen v Case Study

Monsanto Company by Their Patent Agent, De Penning and Depen v. Coramandal Indag Products LTD - Case Study ExampleMonsanto filed a causal agency in India seeking both injunctive relief and an account for the infringement of its patents. The trial court decreed and the depicted object was subsequently dismissed by the appellate court. The appellate court, however, certified the case to the Indian Supreme butterfly on the basis that substantial and complex questions of law were involved. On review, the Supreme Court disagreed that the questions were substantial, but thus far accepted the case to identify and to clarify the real trends presented by the underlying facts. The questions presented are essentially triple 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 fur ther issues. First, under section 64(e) of the Patents Act of 1970, was this process generally known and therefore exit to revocation The Supreme Court entrap that this process was generally known. Second, under section 64(1)(f) of the Patents act of 1970, did Monsanto blend 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.