JUDGMENT 1. This suit is filed under S.104 and 108 of the Indian Patents Act for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing and selling polymer based brush coir mats using the plaintiffs invention or any part thereof, or adopting in the process of manufacture the specially designed and deviced metal core or in any manner infringing the patent right of the plaintiffs in the process of manufacturing polymer based brush coir mats in any manner whatsoever and for damages of Rs. 22,500 with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of suit till realisation as per the statement of accounts shown and also to recover future damages in the rate of Rs. 22,500 per annum with interest at the rate of 1.8 per cent per annum from the defendants and their assets and with costs. 2. This suit was filed originally as O.S. No. 13/93 before the District Court of Kottayam and in view of the counter claim made by the defendants, the suit was transferred to this court for trial. 3. The material averments in the plaint are that the plaintiffs invented and developed a particular technique in the manufacture of polymer based brush mats which was duly patented under the Indian Patents Act (Act 39 of 1970) with patent No. 1,67746 dated 2nd July 1986. The Controller of patents caused the patent to be sealed and has issued certificate A.No. 14595 dated 20th September 1991. Thus the plaintiffs have got the privilege of using or exercising their invention in India for a term, of 14 years from 22nd July 1986 exclusively. No one else has got the right or authority to use the said device or any part thereof without the permission from the plaintiffs. The patented invention consists of a flat metal core having a groove at its centre running along its length. With the help of this metal core more than one mat can be produced simultaneously and the flat metal core is the essential and material part of the patented invention. In the process of manufacturing the coir yarn is wound over the cores and then they are completely covered by unvulcanised compounded rubber so that the exposed portions of the wound yarn is completely covered by the rubber compound on the top, bottom and sides. Then this assembly is vulcanised under pressure in a heated press. In the process of manufacturing the coir yarn is wound over the cores and then they are completely covered by unvulcanised compounded rubber so that the exposed portions of the wound yarn is completely covered by the rubber compound on the top, bottom and sides. Then this assembly is vulcanised under pressure in a heated press. After cooling the cores are removed by cutting the yarn along the groove provided at the centre of each core. Then the cores are removed to get the two mats simultaneously. The patented invention is a composite process specially designed and devised and used in the manufacture of mats. Under the new invention no separate mould or shearing is required. The mats had rubber walls on lateral and dorsel sides which give a better appearance and greater stability to the final product. There are other special advantages also. It is highly economical and it saves labour considerably. Wastage of raw materials is avoided. High productivity, better stability and greater durability are other features. Because of the use of the special metal core the mats got well formed in regular channels, which facilitate easy dusting and cleaning. The product has gained high appreciation resulting in great demand in the market. Because of its unique and singular qualitiers the new invention has proved to be a break through in the conventional method and enhanced its utility coupled with novelty. The second defendant was one of the partners of M/s Rubcoir Industries, which was a firm engaged in the manufacture of polymer based brush mats under an assignment from the plaintiff. They were producing and marketing only polymer based non-woven brush mats using the plaintiffs' invention. Acknowledging this fact the firm was paying royalty to the plaintiffs for using the patent of their invention. Thus the patented invention was used from 25th September 1986 to 6th August 1992. The second defendant was fully aware of all the techniques and steps in the manufacturing process of the patented invention. The said firm was dissolved with effect from 31st October 1992 and the assignment granted to it also terminated accordingly. The second defendant started another industrial unit along with defendants 3 and 4 under the name and style M/s Coiron Industries for the manufacture of the same product adopting the substantial and material part of the plaintiffs' patented invention. The said firm was dissolved with effect from 31st October 1992 and the assignment granted to it also terminated accordingly. The second defendant started another industrial unit along with defendants 3 and 4 under the name and style M/s Coiron Industries for the manufacture of the same product adopting the substantial and material part of the plaintiffs' patented invention. The defendants had no right or authority to adopt on use the plaintiffs' invention or any part thereof in the process of manufacturing polymer based rubber mats without their consent or permission. Thus it is alleged that the conduct of the defendants is highly irregular and illegal and it is in flagrant violation and gross infringement of the patent right of the plaintiffs. Thus the plaintiffs prayed for restraining the defendants from infringing the rights of the plaintiffs failing which the plaintiffs will be put to irreparable loss, injury and hardship. The defendants started marketing their illegal product. The products of the plaintiffs and the defendants on comparison showed that the products are similar and identical in all respects. Thus the new and material part of the plaintiffs' invention has been pirated and adopted by the defendants. After the dissolution of the firm M/s Rubcoir Industries, the plaintiffs were negotiating with Mrs. Beena Mathew, Kadavil House, Ruby Nagar, Changanacherry. But due to the illegal introduction of the similar and identical product by the defendants, the plaintiffs could not enter into an agreement because Beena Mathew expressed her disinterest in the patented invention as similar products are freely manufactured and marketed by the defendants. Thus the piracy of the defendants has been severely affected by the plaintiffs in all respects including their royalty. The plaintiffs alleged to have suffered damages at the rate of Rs. 25,000 per year as the defendants started illegal production from April 1993 onwards. In spite of repeated requests the defendants did not abstain from the illegal course of action. Thus the plaintiffs claimed Rs. 10,000 by way of exemplary damage for infringing their patent right. Thus the plaintiffs prayed for a decree of prohibitory injunction and damages and costs. 4. The defendants filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable under the patents Act and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any reliefs as prayed for. 10,000 by way of exemplary damage for infringing their patent right. Thus the plaintiffs prayed for a decree of prohibitory injunction and damages and costs. 4. The defendants filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable under the patents Act and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any reliefs as prayed for. According to them there was no invention and that the patent granted in favour of the plaintiffs was not correct. They have also a case that there was no novelty for the invention and that it was a new method. They also contended that the alleged patent was useless and that modifications were effected after getting advice from the father of the second defendant. According to them no manufacture could be done and that Rubcoir Industries had to be wound up and dissolved. According to them the mats manufactured by the firm of the defendants have had market and out of spine the present suit is filed. Thus they prayed for revocation of the patent by necessary declaration. They also prayed for granting damages in their favour. 5. It is seen that no court fee was paid on the counter claim. Thus the counter claim cannot be considered in this suit. 6. The plaintiffs filed replication in the nature of written statement denying the contentions of the defendants. 7. The issues framed area: (1) whether the plaintiffs' invention has utility and novelty and whether the plaintiffs have obtained royalty as alleged; (2) whether the plaintiffs have valid registration of patent and whether the metal core described in the plaint is one manufactured by using patent No. 167746 dated 22nd July 1986; (3) whether there has been any infringement as alleged; (4) whether the defendants are getting any patent right as contended and whether the counter claim is true and valid; (5) whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as prayed for; (6) what, if any, is the quantum of the damages to which the plaintiffs are entitled; and (7) what is the proper order as to costs. 8. The evidence in the suit consists of the documents marked as Exts. A-l to A-22 and B-l to B-6 and the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3. and D.Ws. 1 to 3. 9. Issue No. 1. The plaintiff claimed patent as per Ext. A-6 specification under the Patents Act. 8. The evidence in the suit consists of the documents marked as Exts. A-l to A-22 and B-l to B-6 and the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3. and D.Ws. 1 to 3. 9. Issue No. 1. The plaintiff claimed patent as per Ext. A-6 specification under the Patents Act. The contention of the defendants is that the specification was not the same arid that there was no channel, but only a groove. They also contended that Ext. A-6 specification could not be put to practical use. According to them after getting advice from the second defendant's father it was made workable and that later the project was abandoned as it was working at a loss. S.2(j) of the Patents Act, 1970 defines invention as it means "any new and useful (i) art, process, method or manner of manufacture; (ii) machine apparatus or other article; (iii) substance produced by manufacture, and includes any new and useful improvement of any of them, and an alleged invention. Thus as per the definition any new and useful improvement of a machine, apparatus or other article comes within the definition of invention. Patent is defined in S.2(m) as it means 'a patent granted under the Act'. S.3 deals with the inventions not patentable. Thus as per the definition any new and useful improvement of a machine, apparatus or other article comes within the definition of invention. Patent is defined in S.2(m) as it means 'a patent granted under the Act'. S.3 deals with the inventions not patentable. Such inventions are: (a) an invention which is frivolous or which claims anything obviously contrary to well-established natural laws; (b) an invention the primary or intended use of which would be contrary to law or morality or injurious to public health; (c) the mere discovery of a scientific principle or the formulation of an abstract theory; (d) the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant; (e) a substance obtained by a mere admixture resulting only in the aggregation of the properties of the components thereof or process for producing such substance; (f) the mere arrangement or re-arrangement or duplication of known devices each functioning independently of one another in a known way; (g) a method or process of testing applicable during the process of manufacture for rendering the machine, apparatus or other equipment more efficient or for the improvement or restoration of the existing machine, apparatus or other equipment of for the improvement or control of manufactures; (h) a method of agriculture or horticulture; (i) any process for the medicinal, surgical, curative, prophylactic or other treatment of human beings or any process for a similar treatment of animals or plants to render them free of disease or to increase their economic value or that of their products". S.5 states that "where only methods or processes of manufacture patentable are shown in the invention, no patent shall be granted in respect of claims for the substances themselves. But at the same time claims for the methods or process of manufacture shall be patentable. S.6 deals with the class of persons who are entitled to apply for patents. Thus under S.6 any person claiming to be the true and first inventor of the invention or his assignee or his legal representative is entitled to make application for grant of patent. S.7 deals with the form of application. S.8 deals with foreign application. S.9 deals with provisional and complete specifications. Thus under S.6 any person claiming to be the true and first inventor of the invention or his assignee or his legal representative is entitled to make application for grant of patent. S.7 deals with the form of application. S.8 deals with foreign application. S.9 deals with provisional and complete specifications. S.10 deals with the contents of specifications. S.12 of the Act deals as to how the applications are examined. S.14 states that the report of the examiner is called for and action is taken by the Controller on that report. An opportunity or being heard is also given by the Controller to the persons who had applied for patent. The cases where the Controller can refuse or require amended application is dealt with under S.15. Under S.21 of the Act the applicant is allowed to rectify errors if any. S.22 deals with the acceptance of the complete specification. The Controller shall give notice on acceptance of the complete specification to the applicant and shall advertise in the official Gazette the fact that the specification has been accepted as laid down under S.23 of the Act. Then the application and the specification with the drawings, if any, filed in pursuance thereof shall be open to public inspection. The fact of acceptance of complete specification is dealt with under S.24 of the Act. Thus under S.24 on and from the date of advertisement of the acceptance of a complete specification and until the date of sealing of a patent in respect thereof, the applicant shall have the like privileges and rights as if a patent for the invention had been sealed on the date of advertisement of acceptance of the complete specification. There is a proviso to this section which shows that the applicant shall not be entitled to institute any proceedings for infringement until the patent has been sealed. Within four months from the date of advertisement contemplated under S.24 of the Act, any person interested may give notice to the Controller of opposition to the grant of the patent on any of the grounds mentioned under S.25 of the Act. S.43 deals with the grant of and sealing of the patent. S.48 deals with the right of the patentees. S.43 deals with the grant of and sealing of the patent. S.48 deals with the right of the patentees. Thus under that section a patent granted shall confer on the patentee the exclusive right by himself, his agents or licensees to make use, exercise, sell or distribute the invention in India. The term of the patent is mentioned under S.53 of the Act. Thus in respect of an invention claiming the method or process of manufacture of a substance, where the substance is intended for use, or is capable of being used, as food or as a medicine or drug, the period is five years from the date of sealing of the patent or seven years from the date of the patent whichever period is shorter and in respect of any other invention, the term is forteen years from the date of patent. Under S.60 it is specified that on the expiry of the period prescribed for the payment of any renewal fee and if fee is not paid within the prescribed period or within the extended period, the patent shall cease to have effect. The period can be extended for payment of renewal fee only for six months. Thus on the expiry of the period of patent, any one of the public can use the patent. S.63 of the Act deals with surrender of the patents and S.64 deals with the circumstances wherein the patent stands revoked. In this case the defendants have got a prayer to revoke the patent and it is taken as counter claim. Under S.84 of the Act any person interested can apply to the Controller for the grant of compulsory licence to work the patented invention. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that the suit was not maintainable under S.104 or S.108 of the Patents Act. According to him the suit must be for declaration regarding the patent to attract the jurisdiction of the court. He further argued that the reliefs which the court can grant under S.1,08 of the Act are regarding the suits which are filed for declaration. But it is to be noted that under S.104 it is stated that the suit can be filed for infringement of the patent. As the present suit is for prohibitory injunction against infringement of the patent granted in favour of the plaintiffs, the suit is perfectly maintainable. But it is to be noted that under S.104 it is stated that the suit can be filed for infringement of the patent. As the present suit is for prohibitory injunction against infringement of the patent granted in favour of the plaintiffs, the suit is perfectly maintainable. Under S.108 of the Act reliefs in a suit, which can be granted are injunction, damages or account of profits. The plaintiffs have only claimed injunction and damages in this suit and as such it is maintainable. 11. It is to be noted that novelty and utility must exist for grant of patent. As I stated earlier Ext. A-6 is the patent granted in favour of the plaintiffs by the Controller of Patents and Licence of the Government of India. The patent No. shown is 167746 dated 22nd July 1.986. The title shown is "a method of manufacturing polymer based brush mats of woven type and non-woven type simultaneously". At page 2 of Ext. A-6 it is stated that polymer based brush mats are manufactured at present by winding fibre yarn around metal cores. The wound cores are fitted into a metal frame by mechanical means. An unvulcanised sheet of compounded rubber of suitable thickness is placed over the cores. A metal plate with design or emblem suitably scored on the surface of it and having grooves which determine the size of the mat is placed over the rubber sheet. The assembled frame is vulcanised in moulding press by heat under pressure. After vulcanisation it is taken out. The cores are removed by cutting the twisted yarns at the top of the cores. The loops of yarn remaining, embedded in the vulcanised sheet of rubber is taken out. The top portion of the loops of yarn is removed by shearing to form the brush of the mat. This method has the following disadvantages: 1. The sides of the mat are either partially covered by polymer or the polymer overlaps on to the tufted face of the mat. The top portion of the loops of yarn is removed by shearing to form the brush of the mat. This method has the following disadvantages: 1. The sides of the mat are either partially covered by polymer or the polymer overlaps on to the tufted face of the mat. (ii) stacking the cores with the flat surface of each core in close contact with the projected portion of the next core, the number of cores deciding the desired length of the mat; (iii) covering the assembled cores with a known compounded polymer sheet of desired thickness, length and width; (to) holding the assembled cores covered with compounded polymer sheet in between two metal plates; (v) applying pressure to the metal plates by placing it between the heated plates of a press till the compounded polymer is hardened; (vi) removing the assembly from the press after releasing the pressure; (vii) taking out the cores by cutting the fibre by running a knife along the channel on the core to get two brush mats one being woven type and the other being non-woven type. 12. In the accompanying drawings four figures arc shown. The first figure shows the plain view of the metal core. The second figure shows the elevation of the metal core. The third figure shows the stack assemble of wound cores, and the fourth figure shows the cross section view along the side of figure 3. In this method the manufacturing of polymer based brush mats, conventional look used in the coir industry may be used. During weaving, metal core of the shape shown in figures 1 and 2 is inserted in between two wefts. The pile height of the mats will roughly correspond to the width of the core between the channel and the corresponding edge. The width of the core may be 4 mm. to any desired width depending on the required pile hight of the mats. The thickness of the core may be 2 to 8 mm. The projection at the ends of the cores will decide the density of the brush. The thickness of yarn is selected so that the compressed thickness of two yarns is roughly equal to the projections at the ends of the cores. The distance between the ends will be the width of the mat. The length of the mat depends on the number of cores in the core assembly. The thickness of yarn is selected so that the compressed thickness of two yarns is roughly equal to the projections at the ends of the cores. The distance between the ends will be the width of the mat. The length of the mat depends on the number of cores in the core assembly. In the woven mat the metal projections at the ends of the assembled cores will closely touch each other. The core assembly produced by loom weaving using the above specified cores is shown in figure 3. The cores during weaving gets very firmly bound together just like tightly packed in a frame. Figure 4 shows a cross section view of the core assembly in which the wrap yarn, the weft yarn, looped yarn and the core are shown clearly. The projected portions at the two ends of the cores form the two sides of frames for moulding the mat. Compounded polymer sheet of the required thickness and width is wound round the core assembly so that the exposed portions of wound yarn is completely covered by polymer on the top and bottom surfaces and the sides at the two ends. Thus the metal core at one end of the assembly will have a plane face covered with polymer. The metal core at the other end of the assembly will have its projections projecting outwards as can be seen in figure 3. The metal cores at the two ends of the core assembly are provided with tapped screw holes at the centre of the projected metal portions. These holes run perpendicular to the length of the core. To one end of the core assembly where metal parts are projecting outwards an unwound metal core is fixed by screwing into the holes so that the plane surface of the core come in contact with the projected portion of the core. Another core is attached in this manner at the other end so that the metal projections of the unwound core come in contact with the plane face of the woven core. These two cores thus attached at the two ends serve as frames at the ends. Excess quantity of compounded polymer is placed at the edges on both sides. This is to ensure the formation of well formed edges at all sides of the mat during heating under pressure. These two cores thus attached at the two ends serve as frames at the ends. Excess quantity of compounded polymer is placed at the edges on both sides. This is to ensure the formation of well formed edges at all sides of the mat during heating under pressure. Metal plates with design or emblem suitably scored on the surface are placed on both sides of the core assembly. This is then loaded between the heated plates of a press which can be heated to temperature ranging from 130° C to 170° C. The two plates of the press, one at the bottom and the other at the top are pressed together using mechanical force or hydraulic force or in any other known manner. The press plates are held at pressure ranging from 300 to 1500 1bs. until polymerisation is completed which will take 5 to 30 minutes. After polymerisation the press is opened. The mould is taken out. The top and bottom plates are removed. The cores are then taken out by cutting with a knife running along the channel provided on the plane face of each core. When all the cores are thus removed two brush mats are produced. One is woven type with loops firmly embedded in polymer sheet. 13. By this method brush mats of woven and non-woven types can be produced economically since for the same quantity of fibre, labour and fuel is used to obtain two mats. The woven mats produced by this method are of exceptional durability. It is also possible to obtain very low pile heights with ordinary yarn thickness. The tension on the wound yarn can be made higher than in the existing method enabling well formed bristles. The method can be used to produce mats of two pile heights by making the channel on the core nearer to one edge. The method can be used very effectively with coir yarns embedded on rubber sheets. 14. The main attack against Ext. A-6 specification by the defendants is that it is useless and unworkable. Exts. A-7 and B-9 are the metal cores and they are more or less the same. The difference is only there is small loup holes in Ext. B-9, which is not seen in Ext. A-7. Regarding the objections the defendants have no consistent case as seen in Para.2, 9 to 11, 20 and 21 of the written statement. Exts. A-7 and B-9 are the metal cores and they are more or less the same. The difference is only there is small loup holes in Ext. B-9, which is not seen in Ext. A-7. Regarding the objections the defendants have no consistent case as seen in Para.2, 9 to 11, 20 and 21 of the written statement. D.W.I at page 3 of his deposition admitted that the product of the plaintiffs' firm and the defendants' firm is the same. Exts. A-9 and A-11 mats are similar to Ext. B-5 mat produced by the defendants' firm. Thus the infringement is clearly proved. P. W. 2 mentioned the 13 district advantages. They are: (1) Cent per cent increase in productivity; (2) simultaneous production of two mats in a single operation; (3) operation of shearing is completely avoided; (4) loss of yarn is avoided; (5) use of separate mould is avoided; (6) better dusting and cleaning facility; (7) the mat will not skid even on the most polished floor; (8) larger bond strength and durability; (9) the mat can be cut into any shape; (10) cutting lefts can again be used; (11) brushing efficiency of the mat is very high; (12) cent per cent power utilisation and (13) rubber mould is completely removed. It is to be noted that there was no cross examination of P. W. 2 on its utilities and advantages. P. W. 2 deposed that earlier two coir mats were not produced in a single process. That was admitted by D. W. 1 at page 14 of his deposition and by D. W. 2 at page 11 of his deposition. Thus the novelty of the invention of P. W. 2 is that two woven and non-woven mats can be manufactured in a single process. Thus it has got a novelty and utility. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs referred to the decision reported in AIR 1969 Bombay 255. (Farbwerke Hoechst Aktlenqesellschaltvormals Meister Lucius and Bruning a Corporation v. Unichem Laboratories] wherein it is held that in an action for infringement of patent, the claim in the specifications of the patent need only be as clear as the subject admits and the patentee need not so simplify his claim as to make it easy for infringers to evade it. (Farbwerke Hoechst Aktlenqesellschaltvormals Meister Lucius and Bruning a Corporation v. Unichem Laboratories] wherein it is held that in an action for infringement of patent, the claim in the specifications of the patent need only be as clear as the subject admits and the patentee need not so simplify his claim as to make it easy for infringers to evade it. It is further held that the patentee's duty is not to prevent all possible argument as to whether there is or is not infringement in particular cases, but so enable the court to formulate the questions of fact to be answered. It was also held that the burden of proof is completely on the defendants to show that the patent was invalid on the ground of insufficiency of description. Thus in the light of Ext. A-6 specification and Ext. A-7 metal core supported by the evidence of P. W. 2,1 hold that the invention claimed by the plaintiffs has got utility and novelty and that there is no merit in the argument that Ext. A-6 specifications is useless and unworkable. Admittedly the defendants' firm produced similar mats with the help of Ext. A-6 specifications as evidenced by Ext. B-5 mat. Thus I hold that the invention of the plaintiffs has got utility and novelty as claimed by them. 15. It is to be noted that the second defendant was a partner in the Firm by name Rub Coir Industries, in which the other partner was the wife of the first plaintiff and the mother of the second plaintiff. That partnership started in December 1986 as evidenced by Ext. B-13. As per Ext. B-13 there is an agreement to pay royalty. The firm was dissolved on 10th August 1.992 as evidenced by Ext. A-16 dissolution deed. When the second plaintiff was procuring royalty from another party he received Ext. A-10 caveat notice dated 1st April 1993 from the defendants stating that they were manufacturing the same product. Then the plaintiffs made enquiry and found that the defendants were engaged in the manufacturing of coir mats. Then the plaintiffs purchased Ext. A-l1 coir mat as per Ext. A-12 bill. Thereafter the plaintiffs requested the defendants to desist from using such device. But the defendants did not agree. It was thus that the suit was filed before the District Court of Kottayam on 15th September 1993. Then the plaintiffs purchased Ext. A-l1 coir mat as per Ext. A-12 bill. Thereafter the plaintiffs requested the defendants to desist from using such device. But the defendants did not agree. It was thus that the suit was filed before the District Court of Kottayam on 15th September 1993. Thus considering the evidence of P. W. 1, D. W. 1 and D. W. 2 supported by Ext. A-6 specification and Ext. A-7 metal core, it is clear that the invention made by the plaintiffs has got novelty and utility. 16. Issue No. 2. The fact that the plaintiffs have got valid registration of patent is proved by Ext. A-6 specification. It is also clear that the metal core Ext. A-7 as described in the plaint is one manufactured by the patent No. 167746, dated 22nd July 1986. This is proved by the evidence of P. W. 2. Thus the issue is found in favour of the plaintiffs. 17. Issue No. 3. According to the defendants there was no infringement of Ext. A-6 specification. But the product of the plaintiffs' firm and the defendants' firm is the same. This is proved by P. W. 2 and it was admitted at page 3 of the deposition of D. W. 1. Exts. A-9 and A-11 are the mats manufactured by the plaintiffs' firm, and they are similar to Ext. B-5 mat produced by the defendants' firm. Thus the infringement is clearly proved. It is to be noted that the word 'infringement' is not defined in the Patents Act. Notice of infringement is not necessary. Even if there is colourable variation, there is infringement. The substance of the invention is material as mentioned in Para.5, 6 and 9 of the plaint. D. W.I admitted that Ext. A-7 is a specially designed metal core. Thus considering the evidence on record it is clear that there is infringement as alleged by the plaintiffs. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants argued that the suit was not filed in accordance with the statute and that no notice was sent before filing the suit. But as I stated earlier no notice of infringement is necessary in a suit of this nature and it is sufficient for the plaintiffs to show that there was infringement. That h the cause of action. But as I stated earlier no notice of infringement is necessary in a suit of this nature and it is sufficient for the plaintiffs to show that there was infringement. That h the cause of action. The learned counsel argued that in Para.14 of the plaint what constituted the cause of action is left out. Showing figure No. 2 in Ext. A-6 it was argued that the channel was not shown extending beyond the thickened ends and that in Ext. A-7 core there is a channel which was not shown in accordance with the specification. But it has already come out in evidence that the channel beyond the thickened ends was only a workshop modification of the invented device. Admittedly there was modification. But according to the defendants that modification was due to the joint effort with the help of the defendants' father. It is clear that patent is obtained as evidenced by Ext. A-6 by the plaintiffs for their invention of manufacture of two mats in a single process. It was argued that the metal core invented by P. W. 2 was not produced as admitted by him. But this is not correct as seen at pages 37 and 38 of P. W. 2's deposition. It is clear that P. W. 2 was claiming invention over Ext. A-7 core. Another argument was that stacking the cores was done with Ext. B-6, and as such the claim before the court was different from the claim before the patent authorities. It was further argued that there was no cross examination on the advantages mentioned by P. W. 2 because the advantages mentioned by him was regarding Ext. A-9 metal core. 18. Another argument was that Rub Coir Industries and one Roju James were manufacturing similar mats and that as such it is a known method. It is to be noted that Roju James is none other than a relative of the defendants. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants argued that there was inconsistency in the evidence given with the pleadings in the plaint. He also mentioned that there was an earlier patent of Iype P. Iype as admitted by P.W. 2 at page 28 of his deposition. Thus according to him, the plaintiffs only made modification using the patent of Iype P. Iype with the help of the defendants. He also mentioned that there was an earlier patent of Iype P. Iype as admitted by P.W. 2 at page 28 of his deposition. Thus according to him, the plaintiffs only made modification using the patent of Iype P. Iype with the help of the defendants. He further argued that winding process, which was a known method, alone was used by Rub Coir Industries and the defendants. Thus on the basis of the evidence of P. W.2 and D. W. 3 it was argued that there was only experiments by the parties from the year 1986 till the year 1990. According to him if the above process was given up as not useful and as winding process is a known method, there was no invention. These arguments have no force in the light of the evidence in this case. As I stated earlier, the burden of proof is on the defendants to show that the patent granted in favour of the plaintiffs is to be revoked for the grounds mentioned by them. 19. P.W. 1 is the Assistant District Industries Officer, District Industries Centre, Kottayam. He produced the files relating to application submitted by M/s Rubcoir Industries for sales tax exemption. That was only for the purposes of SSI registration. He proved Exts. A-l to A-3 files. But at page 7 of his deposition P.W. 1 stated that he did not know anything directly about any of the matters connected with the dispute which is the subject matter of this suit. Thus except for the production of Exts. A-l to A-3 files, the evidence of P.W. 1 has no relevancy. P.W. 2 is the first plaintiff and he deposed that the second plaintiff is his son. P.W. 2 deposed that himself and his son made the invention and that it was regarding manufacture of brush coir mats. He deposed that the invention was presented and that the invention was sealed and the certificate was issued by the Controller of Patents. Thus P.W. 2 proved Ext. A-5 certificate produced by him. He produced the complete specification marked as Ext. A-6. P.W. 2 was a graduate in Science with training in technology of rubber. He was trained from the training centre of the Imperial Chemical Industries at Tiljala in Culcutta. P.W. 2 stated that those recommended by the Rubber Industries could get training in that institution. A-5 certificate produced by him. He produced the complete specification marked as Ext. A-6. P.W. 2 was a graduate in Science with training in technology of rubber. He was trained from the training centre of the Imperial Chemical Industries at Tiljala in Culcutta. P.W. 2 stated that those recommended by the Rubber Industries could get training in that institution. At that time P.W. 1 was working in Ruby Rubber Works Limited. P.W. 2 stated that at the time of his invention he had experience for 30 years. He proved Ext. A-7 core with a channel on it. P.W. 2 stated that the channel is indicated by dotted lines in figure No. 1 of Ext. A-6. He deposed that figure No. 2 showed the elevation of metal core with the thickened ends projecting upwards. In that position the channel cannot be seen and that was why the channel was shown in dotted lines. P.W. 1 stated that it was not a slit. P.W. 2 stated that if it was a slit it would have been shown an embedded space in the diagram. P.W. 2 explained the process of manufacturing. The evidence of P.W. 2 shows that the use of Ext. A-l, metal core makes two brush mats made simultaneously. P.W. 2 was definite that without the invention of the metal core it would not be possible to produce two coir mats simultaneously. P.W. 2 deposed at page 9 of his deposition that the existing patent was by method of winding and that it cannot be employed in the loom. P.W. 2 mentioned the advantages in the manufacture of coir mats using Ext. A-7 metal core. P.W. 2 stated that the first defendant was the partnership firm represented by defendants 2 to 4. The third defendant is the brother of the second defendant and the 4th defendant is the mother of defendants 2 and 3. P.W. 2 further stated that the partners of Rubcoir Industries were his wife and the second defendant. He deposed that later the firm was dissolved. Thus the plaintiffs got exclusive right to use the patent in the manufacture of coir mats. He denied the suggestion that Rubcoir Industries was dissolved due to loss. The evidence of D.W. 1 shows that the firm was working profitably and that it was dissolved due to difference of opinion between the partners. Thus the plaintiffs got exclusive right to use the patent in the manufacture of coir mats. He denied the suggestion that Rubcoir Industries was dissolved due to loss. The evidence of D.W. 1 shows that the firm was working profitably and that it was dissolved due to difference of opinion between the partners. Thus it is futile to contend that the firm is dissolved due to loss. 20. P.W. 2 gave evidence regarding the royalty payable to him. P.W. 3 was the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Major Section, Thenganam. He proved Exts. A-18 to A-21, registers produced by him. Those registers are regarding various consumers within the Thenganam Electrical Major Section. The plaintiffs have a claim that due to the use of Ext. A-9 core there is utility of power. That is made clear from the evidence of P.W. 3. The evidence of D.W. 1 shows chat his firm was manufacturing similar mats and as such the infringement is clearly proved. Thus I hold that the infringement as claimed by the plaintiffs is conclusively proved in this case. 21. Issue No. 4. The defendants had a case that they had patent right to produce coir mats. But no such patent was produced. It is also to be noted that no court fee was paid on the counter claim by the defendants. Thus the counter claim as raised by the defendants cannot be considered in this suit. In this context the learned counsel appearing for the defendants argued that there is no necessity to pay court fee on the counter claim as it is a special benefit given in the statute. It is futile to contend that a suit filed under the Patents Act is not governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the Code, court fee is payable on the counter claim and if no court fee is claimed the counter claim cannot be entertained. The counter claim as raised by the defendants in Para.23 of their written gave evidence regarding the royalty payable to him. P.W. 3 was the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Major Section, Thenganam. He proved Exts. A-18 to A-21, registers produced by him. Those registers are regarding various consumers within the Thenganam Electrical Major Section. The plaintiffs have a claim that due to the use of Ext. P.W. 3 was the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Major Section, Thenganam. He proved Exts. A-18 to A-21, registers produced by him. Those registers are regarding various consumers within the Thenganam Electrical Major Section. The plaintiffs have a claim that due to the use of Ext. A-9 core there is utility of power. That is made clear from the evidence of P.W. 3. The evidence of D.W. 1 shows chat his firm was manufacturing similar mats and as such the infringement is clearly proved. Thus I hold that the infringement as claimed by the plaintiffs is conclusively proved in this case. 21. Issue No. 4. The defendants had a case that they had patent right to produce coir mats. But no such patent was produced. It is also to be noted that no court fee was paid on the counter claim by the defendants. Thus the counter claim as raised by the defendants cannot be considered in this suit. In this context the learned counsel appearing for the defendants argued that there is no necessity to pay court fee on the counter claim as it is a special benefit given in the statute. It is futile to contend that a suit filed under the Patents Act is not governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the Code, court fee is payable on the counter claim and if no court fee is claimed the counter claim cannot be entertained. The counter claim as raised by the defendants in Para.23 of their written statement is the prayer for revocation of the patent granted in favour of the plaintiffs and there is a claim for damages also. But as no court fee is paid the counter claim cannot be entertained. Further as the plaintiffs have got a proper, legal patent the prayer for its revocation cannot be entertained. Further the defendants failed to establish that they suffered any damages. Thus this issue is found against the defendants. 22. Issue No. 5. As the patent granted in favour of the plaintiffs was infringed by the defendants and as they have manufactured coir mats using the patent right evidenced by Ext. A-6 and as admitted by D.W. 1, the plaintiffs are entitled to get the injunction prohibiting the defendants from manufacturing coir mats with the help of the patent of the plaintiffs. As the patent granted in favour of the plaintiffs was infringed by the defendants and as they have manufactured coir mats using the patent right evidenced by Ext. A-6 and as admitted by D.W. 1, the plaintiffs are entitled to get the injunction prohibiting the defendants from manufacturing coir mats with the help of the patent of the plaintiffs. In view of the admission of D.W. 1, the cause of action is proved and as such I find that the plaintiffs are entitled to get the injunction as prayed for. 23. Point No. 6. The damages claimed by the plaintiffs is the loss of royalty due to them. As the invention is registered and sealed it cannot be used by others without the permission and knowledge of the plaintiffs. The aspect of royalty is mentioned in Para.8 of the plaint and that is totally denied in Para.18 of the written statement filed by the defendants. P.W. 1 claimed that he is entitled to get Rs. 15,700 per year as damages. The payment of royalty is mentioned at pages 16 and 18 of Ext. A-4. Ext. A-4 is signed by the first defendant. Thus the defendants cannot argue that they were not aware of payment of any royalty. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants argued that Ext. A-4 was a project report and that the facts mentioned in Ext. A-4 are only imaginary. It is futile to contend that no royalty was payable in view of the admission in Ext. A-4 project report. D.W. 1 at page 10 of his deposition admitted his signature in Ext. A-4. Ext. A-16 dissolution deed showed the terms of dissolution. One of the terms was payment of 5 percentage royalty to the plaintiffs. That was admitted by D.W. 2. Even though D.W. 1 at first denied payment of royalty, when the document was produced he admitted that royalty was payable. According to D.W. 1 as stated at page 12 of his deposition there was payment of royalty to his father. But there was no such pleading in the written statement. Further the father of D.W. 1 was not examined as a witness even though he was available. D.W. 1 admitted at page 5 of his deposition that Rubcoir Industries was stopped only due to difference of opinion. But there was no such pleading in the written statement. Further the father of D.W. 1 was not examined as a witness even though he was available. D.W. 1 admitted at page 5 of his deposition that Rubcoir Industries was stopped only due to difference of opinion. Thus his evidence is against the contention in Para.18 of the written statement wherein 18 was stated that the firm was stopped due to loss. D.W. 1 admitted at paged 3 and 4 of his deposition that there were mistakes in the written statement. By looking into Ext. A-22 proved by P.W. 3 the turnover for the period from 1st April 1991 to 31st March 1992 is Rs. 2,56,726. This figure is arrived at by looking into the profit and loss account. At page 17 of Ext. A-7 it is stated that the total manufacture is 954 mats. From 1st April 1991 to 31st May 1992 the total mats produced are 3,291. The electricity consumed for that period is 7723 units. Thus for each mat 2.35 unit was required for Rubcoir Industries. In the defendants' Industry for the period of September to December of 1993 2586 units was consumed. Thus 1100 mats were manufactured by them. Ext. A-12 shows that Rs. 175 is the bill amount. Deducting the discount of Rs. 15 the amount comes to Rs. 150. Thus for four months at the rate of Rs. 150 per month it comes to Rs. 1,55,000. The royalty at the rate of 5 per cent is Rs. 8,250 for four months. The plaintiffs were getting royalty of 7 per cent from Rubco Industries after the suit. Ext. A-22 statement is for the period 1st January 1994 to 31st December 1994 and he shows the consumption of units by Coiron Industries. 17,721 units were consumed. Thus if it is divided by 3.25 units it is seen that 7,540 mats were manufactured. At the rate of Rs. 150 per mat it comes to Rs. 11,31,000. Its royalty at the rate of 5 per cent comes to Rs. 56,550. But if calculated at the rate of 7 per cent it comes to Rs. 79,570. Even though the defendants were failed to produce books of accounts as per order on C.M.P. No. 442/95, they were not produced. In the plaint the damages claimed is Rs. 22,500 per annum. 56,550. But if calculated at the rate of 7 per cent it comes to Rs. 79,570. Even though the defendants were failed to produce books of accounts as per order on C.M.P. No. 442/95, they were not produced. In the plaint the damages claimed is Rs. 22,500 per annum. Thus considering the calculation of royalty on the basis of the electricity units consumed, it is clear that the claim is not excessive. Thus I find that the plaintiffs are entitled to get damages at the rate of Rs. 22,500 per annum as claimed in the plaint. 24. Issue No. 7 As the plaintiffs are entitled to get the prayers shown in the plaint and as the defendants have raised frivolous contentions the defendants are liable to pay the costs to the plaintiffs. 25. In the result the suit is decreed as prayed for with costs. A decree for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing polymer mats with the help of Ext. A-7 metal core is passed against the defendants and the plaintiffs are entitled to get damages of Rs. 22,500 with interest at the rate of 1? per cent per annum from the date of suit till realisation allowing future damages at the same rate of Rs. 22,500 per year with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum till the stoppage of manufacture of polymer based brush coir mats using the plaintiffs' invention as specified in Ext. A-6 or for three years whichever is earlier. Future damages can be realised only on payment of court fee.