Doctrine of Anticipation: The doctrine of anticipation refers to the prior disclosure of a claimed invention by another party or the inventor's own disclosure of the invention through various means, such as publication, sale, or offer to sell, before filing a patent application.

Facts:

• The Plaintiff, Dhanpat Seth, was the inventor and patent holder of a device used for manually hauling agricultural produce, granted Patent No. 195917 on 11.7.2005. Seth conceptualized the invention in 1999, filed a patent application in 2000, and sought protection for his innovative device.
• The Defendant, M/s. Nil Kamal Plastic Crates Ltd. was a manufacturer of plastic products.
• Dhanpat Seth filed a suit seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction and damages of Rs. 51 lakhs against Nil Kamal Plastic Crates Ltd. for patent infringement before the Single judge bench. The learned Single judge dismissed the application for interim relief. Hence, the appeal is filed before the Division Bench of the High Court.

Background/Procedural History:

• The Learned Single Judge dismissed the application for interim relief, stating that the patented device was not novel and was essentially an imitation of a traditional device known as "KILTA." The judge concluded that the suit was hit by the principle of anticipation, as the product was already in the market before being patented.
• Dhanpat Seth filed an appeal against the decision, challenging the rejection of the application for interim relief.

Main Issue:

Whether a process involving an inventive step is an invention, if it is not new product?