# MONSANTO CO v. CORAMANDAL INDAG

- **Citation:** [1986] 1 S.C.R. 120
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1986-01-14
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1490 of 1984
- **Bench:** Chinnappa Reddy, Venkataramiah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/monsanto-co-v-coramandal-indag-9237
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

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 specification 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 marketing "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 InterC
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 suitable 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]

## Text

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 specification 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 marketing "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 InterC
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 suitable 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 REPORTS
[19861 1 s.c.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The long and grasping hand of a
Multi National Company, the Monsanto Company of St. Lcius,
Missouri, United States of America; has reached out to prevent
alleged infringement of two of their patents (Numbers 104120
and 125381) by the defendant, an Indian Private Limited
Company.
Though the suit, as initially laid, was with
reference to two patents, the suit was ultimately confined to
r.
one patent only (Number 125381), the period for which the
other patent ( 104120) was valid having expired during the ;-
pendency of the suit. The suit was decreed by the trial court,
bu.t was dismissed by the appellate court. The appeal which is
now before us has been filed pursuant to a certificate granted
by the appellate bench of the High Court on the ground that
substantial questions of law of great public importance were
involved. The questions, however, were not specified in the
certificate. As we see it, we are unable to find any substantial questions of law of great importance. We are afraid both
the .lower courts misdirected themselves and missed the real
substance of the dispute and found themselves chasing the )
mirage of legal questions which did not strictly arise.
', We may first refer to a few preliminary facts. Weeds, as
is well-known, are a menace to food crops, particularly crops
like' rice which belong to the grass-variety. Research has been
going on for years to discover a weed killer which has no
toxic effect on rice, that is to say, a Herbicide which will
destroy the weeds but allow rice to survive without any
deleterious effect. For long the research was futile. But in
1966-67 came a break through.
A Scientist Dr. John Olin
discovered CP53619 with the fornllla '2-chlore-2' ,6'-DiethylN-(Butoxy-Methyl)- Acetanilide' which satisfied the requirement of a weed killer which had no toxic effect on rice. The t
annual report of the International Rice Research Institute for
1968 state, ''Weed control in rice was an important part of the
Agronomy program. The first agronomic evidence of the efficacy
of granular - trichloroethyl styrene for the selective control
of annual grasses in transplanted rice was obtained at the
Institute. Another new accession, CP53619, gave excellent weed
control in transplanted flooded and non-flooded, upland rice."
It was
further stated "CP53619 at 2 and 4 k.g./ha a.i.
appeard at least twice among the 20 best treatments" and "the
most outstanding new pre-emergence herbicide was 2-chloro-2', -If
6' -diethyl-N-
(butoxymethyl )-acetanilide
(CP
53619)."
The
_,
MONSANTO CO. v. CORAMANDAL INDAG [CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.]
123.
annual report of the International Rice Research Institute for
,, 1969 shows that the herbicide CP 53619 came to acquire the
name of Butachlor.
It is now necessary to refer in some detail to the
averments in the plaint, as the decision of the case, in the
view that we are taking,
turns very IDlCh on What
the
plaintiffs themselves had to say about their case. The first
plaintiff is the Monsanto Company and the second plaintiff is
a subsidiary of the first plaintiff registered as a Company in
India. It was stated in the plaint that the first plaintiff
-
was
the
patentee
of
inventions
entitled
"PHYTOTOXIC
COMPOSITIONS" and "GRASS SELECTIVE HERBICIDE COMPOSITIONS",
duly patented under patent number 104120 dated March 1, 1966
and 125381 dated February 20, 1970. The claims and the particulars relating to the inventions were stated to be contained
in the specifications of the two patents annexed to the plaint
as annexure I and II. After stating so much the plaintiffs
said, and this is very important, "THE ACTIVE INGREDIENT
MENTIONED IN THE CLAIM IS CALLED
"BUTACHLOR". It suggested,
without expressly saying it that the Plaintiffs' patents
•. covered Butachlor also which in fact it did not, as we
shall
presently see. It was next stated that the first plaintiff had
permitted the second plaintiff to work the patents from 1971
onwards under an agreement dated September 3, 1980. The second
plaintiff had been manufacturing and marketing formulations
accordng to the Patents Numbers 104120 and 125381 and 'a
specimen tin containing forlDllations produced by
the second
plaintiff according to the said two patents and sold in the
market by the second plaintiff' was produced along with the
plaint as M.O.I. It came to the notice of the plaintiffs, it
was averred, that the defendant was attempting to market a
. formulation of Butachlor covered by the said patents. They,
~ ·therefore, wrote to the defendant drawing their attention to
the existence of the patents in thelr favour. Some correspondence ensued. In the second week of May, 1981, the second
plaintiff found that the defendant was marketing formulation
of Butachlor covered by the patents of the first plaintiff.
Sample tins of "Butachlor- 50" manufactured by the defendant
were purchased by the plaintiffs and were produced along with
the plaint as M.O.s 3 and 4. The legend on the tins was as
follows :
"Delchor-50
(Butachlor 50%E.C.)
Herbicide
Composition
Butachlor 50% W/W
Solvents and Emulsifiers
50% W/W"
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19861 1 s.c.R.
According to the plaintiffs, the legend on the tins containing I--
the substance manufactured by the defendants showed that what
was sold by the defendants was nothing but a reproduction of
the first plaintiff's patented formulations. The fornulations
of the defendant were sent to Shri Ram Institute for analysis
and they were said to contain the chemical "Butachlor Chemical
formula
for which is 2 Chloro
2'
6'
-Diethyl -
N -
(Butoxymethy()
Acatanilide."
On
these
averments,
the
plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had infringed their
Patents Numbers 104120 and 125381 by selling formulations r
covered by them. The plaintiffs sued for an injunction to
restrain the defendant from infringing their Patents Numbers
104120 and 125371 by the manufacture or sale of the infringing
fornulations as contained in this marked as M.O.Nos. 2 and 3.
The· Plaintiffs also asked for an account etc. Annexed to the
plaint were the two speci.fications relating to Patent Numbers
104120
and
125381.
In
the
specification
relating
to
"Phytotoxic Composition" (Specification No. 104120), it was
claimed :
"We Claim :
1. A phytotoxic composition comprising as an active
ingredient a compound of the fornula shown in
Figure 1 of the accompanying drawings, wherein RI
and R2 are alkyl of alkoxy having from 1 to 10
carbon atoms, R3 is halogen, alkyl or alkoxy having
from 1 to 10 carbon atoms, n is an integer from 0
to 3, A is oxygen or sulfur, X is chlorine, bromine
or iodine, and Z,Zl and Z2 are hydrogen, alkyl,
alkoxy,alkenyl or alkynyl having from 1 to 18
carbon atoms, aryl having from 6 to 24 carbon
auoms, heterocyclyl having a miximum of 24 carbon,
atoms and from 1 to 3 hetero atoms, or two of Z
groups are combined to form a bivalent alkylene
radical having from
1 to 6 carbon atoms in
admixture
with
an
adjuvant
such
as
herein
described, the active ingredient in the said composition being present in an amount of at least 0,1
per cent by weight.
2. A phytotoxic composition as claimed in Claim 1,
wherein the active ingredient is 2' -tertbuty 1-2chloro-N- (2-prophynyloxy-methyl)-6'methyl-
~
acetanilide.
MONSANTO CO. v. CORAMANDAL INDAG [CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.]
125
A
3 .• A phytotexic composition· as claimed in Claim l,
wherein the active ingredient is 2' -tertbutyl-2chlore-N-(2-prophynyloxy-methyl )-6 '--methyl-acetanilide.
'
4. A phytotexic composition as claimed in Claim I,
wherein the active ingredient is 2' -tertbutyl-2- B
chlore-N(allyloxymethyl)-6'methylacet-anilide.
5. A phytotoxic composition as claimed in Claim I,
wherein the ·active ingredient is 2-tertbutyl-2brome- N-methexy-methyl-6'--methylacetanilide.
6. A phytotoxic composition as claimed in Claim l,
wherein the active ingredient is 2'-tertbutyl-2broome-N-(2-prophynylexyraethy 1)-6methylacetani- C
lide•
·
·
7. A phytotoxic composition as• claimed in Claim 1,
wherein the· active
ingredient is 2-chloro-2', 6disthyl-N-(methoxymethyl) acetanilide.
8. A phytotoxic composition as claimed in Claim 1
wherein the active ingredient is 2'-tertbutyl-2bromo-N-(allyloxymethyl)-6'--methylacetanilide.
D
9. A phytotoxic composition as claimed in Claim I,
wherein the active ingredient is 2'-tertbutyl-2- E
choloro-N-
(2-methoxyethoxymethyl)-6'-methylacetan~
ilide.
JO, A phytotoxic composition as claimed in Claim I,
wherein the active ingredient is 2 '-tertbutyl -2bromo-N-
(2-methoxyethoxymethyl) -6- methylaceF
tanilide.
II. A phytotoxic composition as claimed in Claim
I, wherein the active ingredient is 2-bromoe-2·'-
terbutyl-N-(2,3
dihydroxypropoxyomethyl)-6~
methylacetanilide.
G
12. A phytotoxic composition as claimed in Claim I,
wherein
the
active
ingredient is 2-chloro-2',
6-dimethyl-N-(isoproposymethyl)-acetanilide.
}3. A phytotoxic composition substantially as herein ·before described."
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
126
SUPRy:ME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 1 s.c.R.
In the specification relating to Grass selective Herbicide "
Compositions (Specification No. 125381), it was claimed:
"We claim:
1.
!>- herbicidal composition in the fora of an
eDJllsion, suspension or dispersion, comprising as
active ingredient a compound selected from the
group.
a) 2' ,6' -diethyl-N-butoxymethyl-alpha-chloroacetanilide, and
b) 2', 6'-diethyl-N-(2-butoxyethyl)-alpha-chloroacetanilide, or a mixture of (a)
and
(b)
in
admixture with one or more diluents or carriers and
surface active agents in which an emulsion is
obtained by dissolving the active ingredient in an
organic solvent
and
thereafter dispereing the ,
solution in another liquid medium in the presence
of an emulsifying agent such as herein described.
2. A composition as claimed in claim 1, which
further comprises one or more compounds selected
from the following -
conventional pesticides, fertilizers, and extenders
such as herein described.
3. A composition as claimed in claim 2, wherein
mineral extenders such as natural
clays, phyrophyllites and vermiculite having a perticle
size
of 2000 to 149 microns, preferably of
1410 to 250;
microns, are used.
4. A herbicidal composition in the fora of an
emulsion, suspension or dispersion substantially as
hereinbefore described."
We do not propose to set out in detail the contents of
the written statement. It is sufficient to state that the
Defendant claimed as he was entitled to do under s. 107 of the
Patents Act
1970, that the patents were liable to be revoked
under s. 64(1) (a),(b),(d),(e),(f),(g),(h),(i),(j),(k),(l) and .t-
(m) of the Patents Act. The defendant also made counter claim
seeking revocation of the patents.
MONSANTO CO. v. CORAMANDAL INDAG [CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.]
127
A close scrutiny of the plaint and a reference to the
•
evidence of the witnesses for the plaintiff atonce exposes the
hollowness of the suit. We must begin with the statement in
the plaint that "THE ACTIVE INGREDIENT MENTIONED IN THE CLAIM
IS CALLED
'BUTACHLOR "' which suggests that
Butachl~r was
covered by the Plaintiffs' patents and the circumstance now
admitted that no one, neither the plaintiff nor any one else,
has a patent for Butachlor. The admission was e'itpressly made
by PW-2, the power of attorney holder of the first plaintiff
and Director of the second plaintiff company. The learned
counsel for the plaintiffs also .admitted the same before us.
PW-1, Dr. Dixon, Chemist of.the first plaintiff company, after
explaining the use of an elDllsifying agent t in answer to a
direct question, whether his company claimed any patent or
special knowledge for the use of any particular solvent or
particular emulsifying agent, in the formulation in their
patent, had to adtilit that they had no such patent or special
knowledge. He further admitted that the use of solvent and
elllllsifying agent on the active ingredient was one of the
well-known methods used in the pesticide industry to prepare a
marketable product. He also expressed his inability to say
what diluents or emulsifying agents the defendant used in
their process. PW-2 admitted that Butachlor was a common name
and that the Weed Science Society of America had allotted the
common name. He stated that "Machete" was the brand name under
which their company manufactured Butachlor. He also stated
that there could be a number of concerns all over the world
manufacturing Butachlor, but he was not aware of them.
He
admitted that they did not claim a patent for Butachlor. He
stated that though his company did not claim a patent for
Butachlor, they claimed a patent for the process of making a
Butachloi em.ilsifiable concentrate to be used as a Herbicide
composition for rice. Pursued further in cross-examination, he
was forced to admit that they used kerosene as a solvent for
Butachlor and an ell1llsifier manufactured by a local Indian
company as ap elllllsifying agent. He then proceeded to state
that he claimed secrecy with regard to the ·manufacture of
their forll1llation. When he asked further whether the secrecy
claimed was with regard to the solvent or with regard t o the
I stabilizer, he answered in the negative. He finally admitted
[that his secret was
confined to the active ingredient
I Butachlor about which as we know there is no secret. · PW-3,
\Robert
Galson Depenning
the patent agent of the first
plaintiff under a power of attorney from the first plaintiff,
!stated that it was he that had verified the plaint and that it
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 1 s.c.R.
was on his instructions that the plaint was drafted. lie stated
that according to him,
by selling his formulations the
defendant had infringed Patents Numbers 104120 and 125381,
though he was unable to explain which part of his claim in
Patent Number 104120 was infringed as he was not a Chemist. lie
stated that he said so and was able to say so in consultation
with the Managing Director of the second plaintiff company. He
stated that it was explained to him by PW-2 that both the
Patents
Numbers
104120
and
125381
were
infringed.
He
also admitted that it was he that had signed the specification
of 104120 and while he was not sure whether he had signed the
specification Number 125381, he saw that it had been signed by
Depenning and Depenning.
We, therefore, see that Butachlor which was the common
name for CP 53619 was discovered, even prior to 1968 as a
Herbicide possessing the property of nontoxic effect on rice.
The
formula for the Herbicide was published in the report of
the International Rice Research Institute for the year 1968
and its common name Butachlor was also mentioned in the report
of the International Rice Research Institute for the year
1969. No one patented the invention Butachlor anJ 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
suitable solvent and by mixing the solution with an emulsifying agent. Emulsification is a well-known process and is no
one's discovery. In the face of the now undisputable fact that
there is no patent for or any secrecy attached to Butachlor,
the solvent or the emulsifying agent and the further fact that
the process of emulsification is no new discovery, the present
suit based on the secrecy claimed in respect of the active
agent Butachlor and the claim for the process of emulsification must necessarily fail. Under sec. 61(l)(d), a patent may
be.revoked 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 as claimed in any claim of the complete
specification is not new, having regard to what was publicly
known or publicly used in India before the date of the claim,
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
no~ involve any inventive
step having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used
in India or what was published in Indl.a before the priority
MONSANTO CO. v. CORAMANDAL INDAG [CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.]
129
date of the claim (the words "or elsewhere" are omitted by us
as the patents in the present case were granted under the
Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, i.e., before the Patents
Act 1970).
"Invention has been defined by secc. 2(j) as
follows:
" Invention" means any new and useful -
( i) a_rt, process, method or manner of manufacture;
(ii) machine, apparatus or other article;
(iii)
substance
produced
by
manufacture,
and
A
B
includes any new and useful improvement of any of
C
them, and an alleged invention."
..
It is clear from the facts narrated by us that the Herbicide CP 53619 (Butachlor) was publicly known before
Patent
Number 125381 was granted. Its foI'llJ.lla and use had already
been made known to the public by the report of the International Rice Research Institute for the year 1968. No one
claimed any patent or any other exclusive right in Butachlor.
To satisfy the requirement of being publicly known as used in
clauses (e) and (f) of sec. 64(1) 1 it is not necessary that it
should 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 knowledge of the patented product or process
either as men of sciene or men of commerce or consumers. 'Ille
section of the public who, as men of science or men of
co111nerce, were interested in knowing about Herbicides ·which
would destroy weeds but not rice, must have been aware of _ _the
~ discovery of Butachlor. 'Illere was no secret about the active
agent ·Butachlor as claimed by the plaintiffs since there was
no patent for Butachlor, as admitted by the plaintiffs.
Emulsification was the well-known and common process by which
any Herbicide could be used. Neither Butachlor nor the process
of Emulsification was
capable of being claimed by the
plaintiff .11s their exclusive property. 'Ille solvent and the
elD.llsifier were not secrets and they were admittedly not
secrets and they were ordinary market · products. From the
beginning to the end, there was no secret and there was no
invention by the
palintiffs~ The ingredients, the active
ingredient, the solvent and the emulsifier, were known; the
process was known, the product was known and the use was known.
The plaintiffs were merely camouflaging a substance whose
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 1 S.C.R.
discovery was known through out the world and trying to enfold
it in their specification relating to Patent Number 125381.
The patent is, therefore, liable to be revoked. We do not
think that it is necessary for us to go into the various
questions of law so carefully and meticulously argued by Mr.
Chellaswamy. The questions were no doubt interesting and arose
for the first time. But we desire to keep our interest purely
academic and within bounds. So we do not pronounce upon those
questions. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
M.t.A.
Appeal dismissed.