MONSANTO COMPANY BY THEIR PATENT AGENT, DE PENNING AND DE PENNING versus CORAMANDAL INDAG PRODUCTS (P) LTD.

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 120 · Decided: 14-01-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

120 
A 
B 
MONSAN'l'O COMPANY BY THEIR PATENT AGENT, 
DE PENNING AND DE PENNING 
Vo 
CORAMANDAL INDAG PRODUCTS (P) LTD, 
JANUARY 14, 1986 
' 
[O, CHINNAPPA REDDY AND E,S, VENKATARAMIAH, JJ,] 
c 
' Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 64(l)(e) and (f) - Patent -
When Hable to be revoked - Invention being publicly known -
Requirement of -
When satisfied - E111.11Bification - Whether 
invention 
Herbicide 
Formulations 
containing 
active 
ingredient 'Butachlor' - Whether can be enfolded in specifi-
cation relating to a Patent Product. 
D 
E 
The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit against the 
respondent 
on 
the ground 
that its inventions entitled 
"Phytotoxic Compositions" 
and 
"Grass 
Selective Herbicide 
Compositions" duly patented containing the active ingredient 
"Butachlor" was infringed by the defendant-respondent market-
ing "Delchor-50" ·a formulation of ''Butachlor" which was 
alleged to be covered by the plaintiff's Patent No. 125381, In 
the written statement, the defendant-respondent claimed that 
the patents were liable to be revoked under s.64(l)(a), (b), 
(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (!), (j), (k), (1), and (m) of the 
Patents Act, 1970. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, 
but waa dismissed by the appellate court. 
Dismisaing the appeel, 
ll!Ul : l(i) Under s. 6l(l)(d), a patent may be revoked 
F 
on the ground that the subject of any claim of the complete ' 
specification is not an invention within the meaning of the 
Act. ·Under sec. 64(e), a patent may be revoked if the 
invention so far ail claimed in any claim of the complete 
specification ia not new, having regard to what was publicly 
known or publicly used in India before the date of the claim, 
G 
etc. Under sec. 64(1 )(f), a patent may be revoked if the 
invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete 
specification is obvious or does not involve any inventive 
step having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used 
H 
in India or what was published in India before the priority ._,. 
date of the claim. [128 G-H; 129 A] 
' '. 
MONSANTO CO. v. CORAMANDAL INDAG 
121 
A 
,; 
l(ii) To satisfy the requirement of being publicly known 
as used in clauses (e) and (f) of sec. 64(1), it is not 
necessary, that it shoul.d be widely used to the knowledge of 
the consumer public. It is sufficient if it is known to the 
persons who are engaged in the pursuit of the knowledge of the 
patented product or process either as men of science or men of B 
commerce or consumers. [129 D-E] 
2, Butachlor which was the common nsme for CP 53619 was 
discovered, even prior to 1968 as a Herbicide possessing the 
...... 
property of non-toxic effect on rice. The form.ila for the 
Herbicide was published in the report of the Internstionsl 
Rice Research Institute for the year 1968 and its common name 
Butachlor was also mentioned in the report of the Inter-
C 
national Rice Research Institute for the year 1969. No one 
patented the invention Butachlor and it was the property of 
the population of the world. Before Butachlor or for that 
matter any Herbicide could be used for killing weeds, it had 
to be converted into an emulsion by dissolving it in a suit-
able solvent and by mixing the solution with an emulsifying D 
< agent. Emulsification is a well-known process and is no one's 
discovery. Neither Butachlor nor the process of Elllllsification 
was capable of being claimed by the plaintiffs as their 
exclusive property. [128 C-E] 
In the instant case, the solvent and the emulsifier were 
admitteiJ.ly not secrets and they were ordinary market products. E 
From the beginning to the end, there was no secret and there 
was no invention by the plaintiffs. The ingredients, the 
active ingredients the solvent and the elllllsifier, were known; 
the process was known, the product was ~own and the use was 
known. The plaintiffs were merely camouflaging a substance 
whose discovery was known throughout the world and trying to F 
' enfold it in their specification relating to Patent Number 
125381. The patent is, therefore, liable to be revoked, 
[129 F-G; 130 A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1490 of 
1984. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated ·16,2.1984 of the 
Madras High Court in O.S.A. No. 217 of 1982. 
S. Chellaswamy, N.H. Hingorani, Mrs. Kapila Hlngorani, 
Mrs. Rekha Pandey and D. Sadasivan for the Appellants. 
F.S. Nariman, M.K. 
Rao, P.N, Ramalingam and A.T.M. 
Sampath for the Respondent. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
122 
SUPREME COURT REPOR

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.