Supreme Court affirms interim injunction issued against SLT on IP case
The Supreme Court on February 20, 2020, refused to grant leave in an appeal preferred by Sri Lanka Telecom PLC and Sri Lanka Telecom (Services) Ltd (SLT & SLT (Services) Ltd) against an interim injunction issued by the Commercial High Court.
The appeal, which was heard by a bench comprising of Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya PC, P. Padman Surasena and E.A.G.R. Amarasekara, on consideration of submissions made on behalf of parties, dismissed the defendantpetitioners’ appeal.
The interim injunction appealed by SLT & SLT (Services) Ltd to the Supreme Court was granted by the Commercial High Court in one of the first cases to be filed in Sri Lanka in respect of an infringement of the layout design of an integrated circuit.
A.M.T. Nirmala (the plaintiff), the inventor of a device identified as “a Power Strip with Lightning Surge and Over Voltage Protection Device” instituted action against SLT & SLT (Services) Ltd under the Intellectual Property Act No. 36 of 2003, seeking to restrain the defendants from disclosing and/or making use of the undisclosed/confidential/confidential commercially-sensitive information, which has allegedly been illegally obtained from A.M.T. Nirmala.
The plaintiff through his plaint filed before the Commercial High Court set out that the plaintiff expending his skill and labour developed a Power Strip with Lightning Surge and Over Voltage Protection Device and introduced his device to the defendants in order to form a joint venture with the defendants.
The defendants being impressed with the plaintiff’s invention had held a series of meetings and requested the plaintiff to submit a prototype of his design in order for the defendants to test the device.
The plaintiff through his plaint had alleged that the plaintiff had submitted his device to the defendants, duly informing the defendants that the plaintiff’s device is part of a patent application and submitted confidentially for the purposes of testing.
The plaintiff through his plaint alleged that the defendants thereafter, pursuant to having the device for a period of over six weeks, informed the plaintiff to collect the plaintiff’s device where the plaintiff noticed to his shock and surprise that the prototype of the plaintiff’s device had been forced open, all the internal components within the device forced open and the technology inspected. The plaintiff had set out very clearly through the plaint that the defendants had no reason to open up the plaintiff’s device for such to be tested unless for unlawful purposes of acquiring the information in respect of the functionality of the prototype. The plaintiff had set out through the plaint that the plaintiff further proceeded to register the layout design of the integrated circuit found within the plaintiff’s invention and submitted to court the complete patent applications and layout design applications lodged at the National Intellectual Property Office of Sri Lanka, under confidential cover, where the Judge directed the Court Registrar to keep such confidential documents under the custody of the Registrar.
Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged through his plaint that the defendants have acted in a pre-orchestrated manner attempting to inspect the technology and the circuits in the plaintiff’s device.
The plaintiff through his plaint alleged further that since the plaintiff’s technology had been illegally obtained by the defendants, there is an imminent threat that the defendants will either make use or disclose the plaintiff’s undisclosed/ confidential/commercially-sensitive business information in respect of the functionality of the plaintiff’s device.
High Court Judge M. Ahsan R. Marikar being satisfied with the plaintiff’s case in the first instance issued notices of interim injunctions and summons on the defendants preventing the defendants from making use and/or disclosing such undisclosed/confidential/ commercially-sensitive business information illegally obtained by the plaintiff in respect of the functionality of the plaintiff’s device.
The defendants thereafter, filed their objections for interim injunctions being granted and both parties thereafter filed written submissions for the inquiry into whether the interim injunction should be granted.
Thereafter, on January 18, 2019, the Commercial High Court issued an interim injunction against SLT & SLT (Services) Ltd preventing SLT & SLT (Services) Ltd from making use of and/or disclosing the confidential information obtained from a young inventor’s device.
The case instituted by the plaintiff before the Commercial High Court is due to be taken up before the Commercial High Court for pre-trial on March 19, 2020.
The defendant-petitioners (SLT &SLT (Services) Ltd) were represented by Dr. Lasantha Hettiarachchi, Medavini Thilekratne and Himath Silva, Attorneys-at-law on the instructions of A.R.L. De Silva, Attorney-at-law.
The plaintiff-respondent (A.M.T. Nirmala) was represented by Nishan Premathiratne, Nadun Wijayasriwardena and Migara Cabral, Attorneys-at-law on the instructions of Julius & Creasy, Attorneys-at-law.