Summary Facts:The Plaintiff of the case, Mr.
Khawaja Tahir Jamal isthe owner of the Khwaja Flat Glass Industries (Private) Limited. He said that he and his company heldthe patent of a novel process for producing and manufacturing sheet glass with thehelp of the float glass technology. The Plaintiff had filed a suit against ARRehman Glass which was a rival company, on the basis, that they had anintention to infringe or had already infringed their patent by setting up afloat glass unit.
So, the Plaintiff had demanded an injunction that wouldrestrain the Defendant from infringing their patent by either producing,selling or using the Plaintiff’s innovation as their own. This suit was contested by the Defendant and theyalleged that the Plaintiff had acquired the patent through fraud andmisrepresentation since, the float glass technology existed before the works ofthe Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff’s patentlacked novelty since, the Pakistani patent was the exact same as the UK patent.Basic Question ofLaw/ Issue:The plaintiff of the case, Khawaja Jamal had claimedthat he was the patentee of a novel process for the manufacturing of sheetglass through the technology of floating glass the plaintiff complained that ARRehman who was the defendant of the case, is establishing the float glassmanufacturing unit, which is infringing his patentee.
The defendant said thatthe plaintiff, Khawaja Jamal had obtained the patentee through fraud and misrepresentationand this technology is not something new and not the invention of Khawaja Jamal.The UK patent is exactly copied by Pakistan so the plaintiff has no right over thepatent. The issue was whether the plaintiff has any rights in the patent andwas the patent was correctly granted or Khawaja Jamal got the patent throughfraud or misrepresentation.
1Decision of thecase:It was held by the judge at High Court, Justice HamidAli Shah that the patent was granted to the Plaintiff in a correct and legalmanner which gave him the exclusive rights to produce, use or sell hisinvention throughout the whole country. If someone was to violate it then itwould give rise to an injunction. The Judge also held that everything that hasinfringed the Plaintiff’s right should not only be fixed or redressed but,those actions or infringements must also be defeated and restrained from happeningagain.
This temporary relief shall be granted according to the relevant statutebecause, when a certain statute imposes a liability on someone or gives certainrights, it also provides “special enforcement remedies” and these remedies mustbe followed and enforced. Since, the Plaintiff’s patent was granted in 1993, hiscase was dealt with the Patents and Designs Act, 1911 which makes his patentvalid because, the patent was granted to him after he had fulfilled all therequirements of the procedure and had provided all the necessary documents and,his claim was also published in the Official Gazette to which no one objecteddespite being open to public objections. The Plaintiff’s claim over the patentwas also guaranteed over the fact that there was no such evidence provided tothe court by the Defendant which showed that the floating glass technology wasavailable before the works or invention of Khawaja Jamal.
It was also held by the Judge, that since, Pakistanhas not signed any international conventions regarding patents so, thePakistani patent is only valid in Pakistan and so are the rights that aregranted to the patentee through that patent. In light of the facts of the case, the court held byconfirming the previous decision in the case of Telephonic Soap v Lever Brothersthat the damages regarding Intellectual Property could not be measured in moneydue to it being irreparable but, an interim injunction was granted which hadstopped the Defendant from making, selling or using Plaintiff’s intellectualproperty as his own product. Since, the Defendant was not satisfied with thedecision of the High Court so, they filed an intra-court appeal in theDivisional Bench of the Lahore High Court. He argued that once the process ofproduction had been started, it cannot be stopped and it had cost him a lot ofmoney for this project so he cannot stop the production of the sheet glass. So,the Judges at the Divisional Bench held that though A.R. Rehman can produce thesheet glass and continue with its manufacturing, he cannot sell or market ituntil the final decision of the case is announced.
2 1 Khawaja Tahir Jamal v AR Rehman Glass (2005CLD 1768). (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ipo.
gov.pk/uploads/CMS/Khawaja%20Tahir%20Jamal%20v%20AR%20Rehman%20Glass.pdf2 Khawaja Tahir Jamal v AR Rehman Glass (2005CLD 1768). (n.d.). Retrieved fromhttp://www.ipo.gov.pk/uploads/CMS/Khawaja%20Tahir%20Jamal%20v%20AR%20Rehman%20Glass.pdf