Bedding Holdings Ltd. v. INEC & 5 Ors.

Law Cases and Principles

Bedding Holdings Ltd. v. INEC & 5 Ors.

Court: Federal High Court, Abuja
Date of Judgment: January 28, 2014
Citation: (2014) 3 CLRN 147
Suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010
Judge: I.N. Auta, CJ

Parties

  • Plaintiff: Bedding Holdings Ltd.
  • Defendants:
    1. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
    2. Prof. Attahiru Jega (Chairman, INEC)
    3. Attorney General of the Federation
    4. Haier Electrical Appliances Corp. Ltd.
    5. Zinox Technologies Ltd.
    6. Avante International Technology Inc.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff, Bedding Holdings Ltd., claimed to be the rightful owner of patent rights over two processes:

  1. Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB)
  2. Proof of Address System/Scheme (PASS)

These processes involved the use of laptops, fingerprint scanners, and other equipment for compiling voter bio-data. The plaintiff alleged that INEC and its contractors used these patented methods in the 2011 general elections without its consent.

Claims:

  • N17.25 billion in special damages (50% of a N34.5 billion contract sum)
  • N20 billion in general damages
  • Injunctions to prevent further infringement

The 4th defendant counterclaimed, seeking to revoke the plaintiff’s patents, alleging prior art and lack of novelty.

Issues and Holdings

1. Intellectual Property – Infringement

  • The court held that the plaintiff proved its patent rights with certificates (Exhibits B, C, D).
  • The defendants failed to show they held any competing rights.
  • Held: There was an infringement of the plaintiff’s patents.

2. Patent Ownership

  • The first to file a patent application is the legal inventor under Nigerian law (Section 2(1) Patents and Designs Act).
  • The plaintiff met this requirement.

3. Patent Rights

  • A granted patent gives the holder exclusive rights to control the use and commercialization of the invention.
  • INEC’s contract awards without the plaintiff’s license constituted infringement.

4. Process vs. Product

  • The plaintiff claimed ownership not of the DDC machines or voter register, but of the process by which the voter register was compiled using specific equipment.
  • The court agreed that process claims were distinct from product claims and protectable.

5. Court’s Role in Protecting Patent Rights

  • The court affirmed that it has a duty to enforce patent laws, especially when government agencies infringe upon valid rights.

6. Counterclaim by 4th Defendant

  • The 4th defendant failed to present credible evidence to support its counterclaim for patent revocation.
  • Held: The counterclaim was dismissed.

7. Joinder of the Attorney-General

  • Though no specific relief was sought against the 3rd defendant, the court held that the AGF was a necessary party to represent federal interests.

Final Judgment

  • Judgment for the Plaintiff:
    • Patent rights upheld
    • Defendants found liable for infringement
    • Counterclaim dismissed

Legal Principles Affirmed

  • The production of a patent certificate is prima facie proof of ownership.
  • Infringement includes contracting with third parties to implement patented processes.
  • A counterclaim must be supported by credible evidence.
  • The court must protect statutory intellectual property rights from unauthorized use—even by government agencies.

Cited Law

  • Patents and Designs Act, Cap P2 LFN 2004
    • Sections 2(1), 3(3)(a), 6(1)(b), 14(1), and 25(1)