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.

Summary of Facts

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

Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB)
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)

Full Facts

Bedding Holdings Limited sued INEC and 5 others (including INEC’s chairman, Professor Attahiru, the Trademarks Registrar, and the Attorney General of the Federation) at the Federal High Court in Abuja for infringing its Patent Rights No. RP 16642 relating to Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes, and Patent Rights No. RP NG/P/2010/202 in respect of Proof of Address System/Scheme (PASS). Both patents relate to the process and application of Direct Data Capture (DDC) machines for the compilation and collection of various biometric information and were protected by patents granted in accordance with the Patent and Designs Act.

Plaintiff’s lawyer, John Okoriko argued that INEC and its agents were in breach of sections 2, 3 (3), 19, 25 and 26 of the Patent and Designs Act and an earlier judgment of the court delivered on January 28, 2014 in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 by conducting voters’ registration, using his client’s patented process, without its prior consent.

The court had, in the January 28 judgment, declared BHL as the owner of patent rights No: RP16642 and copyrights designs No: RD13841 over Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB), and patent rights No: RP NG/P/2010/202 – Proof of Address System/Scheme (PASS) – embedded with the concept of the coded mental plate – and their application for the process of producing voters’ register.

BHL had, in the suit leading to the judgement, argued that INEC infringed on its patent rights by consistently utilising its patented inventions for the process of producing voters’ register, using the Direct Data Capture (DDC) machines without its prior consent, an argument the court upheld.

The court, in the judgment, awarded N17.3 billion damages against INEC, Jega and AGF for the infringement and ordered them to always seek prior consent of the patentee -BHL – before using the invention, failing which any act for which it is deployed would be rendered a nullity.

The plaintiff stated in a supporting affidavit, that rather than first obtain its consent, as ordered in the January 28 judgment, the defendants proceeded to engage in voters’ registration for the last elections in Ekiti and Osun states and the 2015 general elections in breach of its rights.

BHL’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Sylvester Odigie stated, in the supporting affidavit, that it has become a pattern with INEC and Jega to disregard court judgments. He cited a separate judgment given in his company’s favour on the ownership of the patent right over the transparent ballot boxes being used for elections by INEC and which the electoral body has refused to obey.

He urged the court to grant the prayers as contained in the suit as a way of protecting its its integrity, halting arbitrary conduct on the part of the defendants and in the interest of justice. BHL is seeking an order nullifying all voters’ register produced by INEC for the recent governorship elections in Ekiti and osun states and other future elections, using the plaintiff’s patented process without its prior consent.

It also seeks an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from further infringing on the its patented rights as confirmed in the January 28 judgment, by utilising the patented process for voters’ registration without first obtaining its consent.

The plaintiff wants a declaration that by virtue of the provisions of sections 2, 3 (3), 19, 25 and 26 of the Patent and Designs Act, and the subsisting judgment of the court delivered on January 28, 2014 in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010, INEC cannot use its (plaintiff’s) patented process for voters’ registration.

It also seeks a declaration that the continuous voters’ registration exercise being carried out by INEC towards future elections, without seeking the plaintiff’s prior consent is an infringement on itsbpatented rights as confirmed by the January 28, 2014 judgment.

The defendants have denied infringing on the plaintiff’s rights and violating any subsisting judgement. They urged the court to refuse the plaintiff’s prayers and dismiss the suit.

Arguing the counter-affidavit filed by INEC and Jega, their lawyer, Ebuka Nwaeze argued that the judgment on which the plaintiff relied in filing the suit was currently on appeal.

INEC and Jega argued that issues raised in the suit have “been litigated upon and are subject of appeal presently before the Court of Appeal.

“There is no statute, agreement or enforceable instruments by which the claimant (plaintiff) is entitled to be consulted, its consent obtained before using ballot boxes now being used at elections in Nigeria.”

They stated that the Minister of Trade and Investment, Olusegun Aganga, on March 17, 2014 granted them “the right to use the patent being claimed by the claimant.”

INEC and Jega argued that the suit “brought in bad faith” is an attempt to harass and intimidate the commission.

A Nigerian Court To Rule On A Patent Right Infringement Suit On 25/11/2014.
–INEC Disobeyed Earlier Judgment In Favour Of BHL Over Patented Invention……….. BHL Lawyer claimed.
— The Earlier Judgment BHL Relied Upon Is On Appeal………. INEC Lawyer advocated
A Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed November 25 to deliver judgement in a suit seeking to void the voters’ register produced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in preparation for the 2015 general elections.

The suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/172/2014 filed by a firm, – Bedding Holdings Limited (BHL) – has as defendants, INEC, its Chairman, Professor Attahiru Jega and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF). Plaintiff’s lawyer, John Okoriko argued that INEC and its agents were in breach of sections 2, 3 (3), 19, 25 and 26 of the Patent and Designs Act and an earlier judgment of the court delivered on January 28, 2014 in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 by conducting voters’ registration, using his client’s patented process, without its prior consent.

He urged the court to grant the prayers as contained in the suit as a way of protecting its its integrity, halting arbitrary conduct on the part of the defendants and in the interest of justice.

BHL is seeking an order nullifying all voters’ register produced by INEC for the recent governorship elections in Ekiti and Osun states and other future elections, using the plaintiff’s patented process without its prior consent.

It also seeks a declaration that the continuous voters’ registration exercise being carried out by INEC towards future elections, without seeking the plaintiff’s prior consent is an infringement on its patented rights as confirmed by the January 28, 2014 judgment.

The defendants have denied infringing on the plaintiff’s rights and violating any subsisting judgement. They urged the court to refuse the plaintiff’s prayers and dismiss the suit.

Arguing the counter-affidavit filed by INEC and Jega, their lawyer, Ebuka Nwaeze argued that the judgment on which the plaintiff relied in filing the suit was currently on appeal.

INEC and Jega argued that issues raised in the suit have “been litigated upon and are subject of appeal presently before the Court of Appeal.

They stated that the Minister of Trade and Investment, Olusegun Aganga, on March 17, 2014 granted them “the right to use the patent being claimed by the claimant.”
INEC and Jega argued that the suit “brought in bad faith” is an attempt to harass and intimidate the commission.

Judgement: On January 28, 2014, the court found INEC guilty of infringing the patent rights of Bedding Holding Limited. The Court in arriving at its decision held that the Defendants violated the patents and consequently made a declaration that Bedding Holdings Limited is entitled to 50% of the total contract sum amounting to N17, 258, 820, 000 (Seventeen Billion, Two Hundred and Fifty Eight Million, Eight Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira only) as the minimum reasonable royalty accruable for the infringement committed by INEC and the other Defendants.

Case Law – NIPJD » Bedding Holdings Ltd. v. INEC & 5 Ors.