Arewa Textiles Plc & Ors. v. Finetex Ltd.
Court: Court of Appeal
Date of Judgment: November 12, 2002
Citation: 45 NIPJD [CA. 2002] 194/2000
Suit No.: CA/K/194/2000
Jurisdiction: Nigeria
Coram:
- Isa Ayo Salami, J.C.A. (Lead Judgment)
- Mahmud Mohammed, J.C.A.
- Dalhatu Adamu, J.C.A.
Appearances
- Appellants’ Counsel: J. O. Okeaya-Inneh
- Respondent’s Counsel: B. A. Adeleye
Appellants/Defendants:
- Arewa Textiles Plc
- Mr. Pong Wing Hong
- Mr. Edison Padilla
- Mr. Antonio P. Zaplan
Respondent/Plaintiff:
- Finetex Limited
Case Summary
Subject: Patent Infringement and Jurisdiction
The central question was whether Finetex Ltd., the plaintiff/respondent, proved that Arewa Textiles Plc and others had infringed Patent No. RP 12024. The court also examined whether Finetex had standing and whether its patent rights were validly assigned and registered.
I. Full Facts
Finetex Ltd. sued Arewa Textiles Plc and three individuals for infringing a registered patent (No. RP 12024), covering a method and apparatus for producing textile material (notably “duplex printing”). It sought:
- Two declaratory reliefs
- A perpetual injunction
- ₦5,000,000 in damages against the 1st defendant
- ₦1,000,000 each against the 2nd–4th defendants
Trial Court Findings:
- Accepted all plaintiff’s reliefs
- Held that the defendants failed to counter the plaintiff’s evidence
- Found that the patent was valid and had been infringed
The defendants appealed, arguing:
- The plaintiff was not the original inventor
- There was no proof that the defendants used the patented process
- The plaintiff failed to register the assignment of the patent properly
II. Key Legal Issues
- Ownership of Patent RP 12024
- The patent originated from Kong Sang Wong and was assigned to Boaty Company Ltd., who then purportedly assigned it to Finetex.
- However, Finetex failed to register the assignment under Section 24 of the Patents and Designs Act.
- The Court of Appeal ruled that without proper registration, the assignment had no effect against third parties like the appellants.
- Was the Patent Novel?
- Evidence from both parties showed that duplex printing existed before 1994.
- Finetex’s own witness admitted that the process had been used since the 1980s.
- The defense’s expert (Dr. Fatinikun), a certified textile technologist, testified that the patented process was not new and had been in use in Nigeria before the patent date.
- The court accepted the expert’s evidence and concluded that the patent lacked novelty.
- Was There Infringement?
- Finetex failed to show that the products sold by Arewa Textiles were made using the patented process.
- Both parties agreed that the final products could not be distinguished by production method.
- The court held that Finetex failed to prove actual use or theft of the process.
- Did the Plaintiff Have Locus Standi?
- The lack of registration of the patent assignment and conflicting evidence on inventorship led the court to rule that Finetex had no valid legal standing to sue under the Patents and Designs Act.
III. Final Judgment
- Appeal Allowed
- Judgment of the Federal High Court Set Aside
- Case Dismissed
IV. Legal Principles Affirmed
- Section 24 of the Patents and Designs Act: Assignments or transfers of patent rights must be registered to be enforceable against third parties.
- Section 1 of the Patents and Designs Act: Patents must be new; prior use in Nigeria invalidates patentability.
- A plaintiff must prove its case on its own merit—not merely rely on the weakness of the defense.
- Evidence by a qualified expert is crucial in technical patent cases.
V. Cases Cited
- Odulaja v. Haddad (1973) 11 SC 357
- Boshali v. Allied Commercial Exporters Ltd. (1961) All NLR 917
- Omoregbe v. Lawani (1980) 3–4 SC 108
- Nwabuoku v. Ottih (1961) All NLR 187
- Etiko v. Ayoyewun (1959) 4 FSC 129
- Onobruchere v. Esegine (1986) 2 SC 385
- Akhionbare v. Omoregie (1976) 12 SC 11
- Shell v. Otoko (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 159) 693
- Ogiale v. Shell Petroleum (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 480) 148
- Tsalibawa v. Habiba (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 174) 461