Memorandum For The Petitioner © With 3rd The Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, IIT Kharagpur

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, KHARAGPUR, 2016

TEAM CODE: RG - 06
BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTA
WRIT PETITION CLUBBED WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

W.P. (CIVIL) NO.___ OF 2016 CLUBBED WITH S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. ____ OF 2016
UNDER ARTICLE 136 AND 139A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVARTA READ WITH SECTION 261
OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
AKSMIT IMPEX ..... .PETITIONER

V.
THE CUSTOM OFFICIALS...... RESPONDENT

CLUBBED WITH
SARTRI PVT. LTDAPPELLANT
V.
COMMISSIONER OF TAXRESPONDENT
AND
SARTRI PVT. LTD. & ANR......APPELLANTS
V.
VINSHUK PVT. LTD. & ORSRESPONDENTS
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTA
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of contents.....ii
List of Abbreviations..iii
Index of Authorities.v
Statement of Jurisdiction......viii
Questions Presented...........ix
Statement of Facts..x
Summary of Pleadings......xiv
Pleadings.....1
(1) Whether there has been any violation of fundamental rights or not?
(2) Whether the agreement between Sartri Pvt. Ltd. And Zen Pte. Ltd. Is in
accordance with Arms Length Pricing?
(3) Whether there has been a patent infringement on behalf of the respondents?
Prayerxvi
ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
&..And
ACAppeal Cases
AIR...All India Reporter
All ER... All England Reporters
ALP..Arms Length Price
AO Assessing Officer
App.Appeal
Art...Article
CIT. Commissioner Income Tax
cl..Clause
CUP..Comparable Uncontrolled Transaction
DB..Divisional Bench
Ed...Edition
HonbleHonourable
ibid.Ibidium
ILR.Indian Law Reports
ITAIncome Tax Act, 1961
ITATIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal
ITR.. Income Tax Reporter
ITR..Income Tax Rules, 1962
LR..Law Reports
MAM...Most Appropriate Method
iii

No..Number
Ors...Others
PCPrivy Council
PIL..Public Interest Litigation
SartriSartri Pvt. Ltd
SC..Supreme Court
SCC.Supreme Court Cases
SCR.Supreme Court Reporter
TNMM.Transactional Profit Margin Method
TPO.Transfer Pricing Officer
U/A...Under Article
U/S. Under Section
UOI Union of India
V..Versus
Zen ...Zen Pte. Ltd.
iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES CITED:
1. Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd. v. ACIT, 249 ITR (AT) 32
2. B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories124 F.3d 1419, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
3. Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath AIR 1986 SC 1571
4. Commissioner H.R.E v. LT Swamar AIR 1954 SC 282
5. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Gujarat v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana, AIR 1998 SC 120
6. Dalicha Suketu V Chairman AIR 2012 Guj 62
7. DIT (International Taxation), Mumbai v. Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. 2006 ITR (284)
260
8. E P Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu 1974 SCR (2) 348
9. Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U.S. 436 (1940)
10. General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co. 304 U.S. 587 (1938)
11. Justice P D Dinakaran V Honble Judges Enquiry Committee (2011) 8 SCC 380
12. Kesar Enterprises Ltd. V State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2011 SC 2709
13. Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243
14. M Nagraj V Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212
15. M.M Pathak v. Union of IndiaAIR 1978 SC 803
16. M/S. Entertainment Network India Ltd. V M/S. Super Cassettee Industries Ltd.AIR 1962
SC 316
17. Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700, 703-04 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
18. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
v

19. Meenakshi Mills V Vishwanath, AIR 1955 SC 13; Ajit Singh V State of Punjab, AIR 1967
SC 856
20. Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, (2007) 112 TTJ Delhi 408
21. Mitchell v. Hawley 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 544 (1872)
22. National Phonograph Company of Australia Ltd. v. Menck , [1911] [28] R.P.C. 229, 248.
23. Olga Tellis v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 545
24. Onkar Lal Bajaj V Union of India AIR 2003 SC 2562
25. Quanta Computer, Inc et al v. LG Electronics, Inc, 533 U.S. 617 (2008)
26. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation V Bal Mukund Bairawa (2009) 4 SCC 317
27. Serdia Pharmaceuticals (India) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, [2011] 44 SOT 391(Mum)
28. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericcson V UOI, Delhi High Court on 13.07.2012
29. United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241 (1942)
BOOKS REFERRED:
1. Blacks Law Dictionary, 8th edition
2. Cambridge Learners Dictionary, 1st edition
3. Law of Income Tax, SampathIyenger
4. The Law and Practice of Income Tax, Kanga and Palkhiwalas by Dinesh Vyas
5. The Law and Practice of Income Tax, Kanga and Palkhiwalas by Arvind Datar
LEGAL DATABASES:
1. Hein Online
2. Manupatra
vi

3. SCC Online
4. West Law
LEXICONS:
1. AiyarRamanathan P, Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd edition, 2005, Wadhwa Nagpur.
2. Garner Brayana, Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th edition, 1999.
LEGISLATIONS:
1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
2. Income Tax Rules, 1962
3. IPR Enforcement Rules, 2007
4. The Constitution of India, 1950
5. The Copyright Act, 1967
6. The Income Act, 1961
7. The Patents Act, 1970
8. The Trademark Act, 1999
9. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882
vii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Honble Supreme Court of Aryavarta has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 136
and Article 139A of the Constitution of Aryavarta read with Section 261 of the Income Tax Act,
1961.
viii

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
If it may please this Honble court, in the interest of justice and on account of the reason of
necessity and brevity, this Honble bench is empowered to address the following issues, provided
as hereunder:
ISSUE 1:
WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN ANY VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OR
NOT?
ISSUE 2:
WHETHER THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SARTRI PVT. LTD. AND ZEN PTE. LTD.
IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARMS LENGTH PRICING?
ISSUE 3:
WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A PATENT INFRINGEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENTS?
ix

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Brief Background of the case:
1. RGS Public Ltd., a US based company has a patent on a 3-D printer kit. These kits are
used to increase the efficiency and high value addition to the print. The kits were sold
under the brand name of RiskaTM and under the following three schemes:
i.
Scheme 1: No discount- No terms & conditions.
ii.
Scheme 2: Discount 40%- conditions mentioned hereunder:

-Cartridges are to be refilled, refurbished or purchased by authorized RiskaTM
sellers only.
-Under no circumstances the customer shall resell RiskaTM to any other person or
entity.
iii.
Scheme 3: (only for users who availed Scheme 1) Discount on refilling of

cartridges & same conditions as in scheme 2.
2. RGS incorporated 2 companies viz. ZEN (in Singapore & assigned all the trademarks and
patents in Aryavarta to it) & Melaka (in Ireland and granted license to manufacture,
export & sell RiskaTM in EU countries)
3. Sartri (incorporated in Aryavarta) was also involved in a business of spare parts for 3D
printers. RGS as a part of business expansion plan asked ZEN to grant an exclusive nontransferable, non-alienable, non-licensable license to Sartri. Thereafter Sartri started
importing RiskaTM. The kits were priced at Rs. 1,00,000/- each unit and a profit of Rs.
25000/- on each unit was earned. For this agreement Sarti had to pay Rs. 24 Crores in 4
equal installments in each financial year and 15% running royalty of the price per unit of
RiskaTM. This venture was flourishing in the domestic markets. In 2014, Sartri came to
x

know that some refurbished RiskaTM kits were being sold in the market by some
unauthorized sellers. There were multiple complaints from the customers pertaining to
the bad quality of kits, which resulted in loss of goodwill and loss of customer
relationship for Sartri.
4. Vinshuk (another co incorporated in Aryavarta involved in manufacturing & selling of
spare parts of 3D printers), devised a new business strategy and decided to sell
refurbished RiskaTM kits after importing used kits from EU countries. For this purpose
Aksmit Impex, import-export company was contacted to import used kits from EU
countries and Hun Shui, a company based in Thaikwando (a European Country) was
contacted to collect used kits from EU markets. The plan was to import used kits,
refurbish them and sell at cheaper rates under brand name Visaka at Rs. 75,000/- and
earning a profit of Rs 20,000/- on each unit.
Case I: Aksmit Impex v. The Custom Officials

Sartri filed a notice with the custom officials under the IPR Enforcement Rules, 2007. The
custom officials seized the consignment containing used Riska
TM
kits and notice was given to
the concerned parties. Aggrieved by this Aksmit Impex filed a Writ Petition in HC under Art.
226 against the Commissioner of Customs for violation of their Fundamental Right to property.
This Writ Petition was taken up by the Supreme Court.
Case II: Sartri Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Tax

The Revennue Department instituted an inquiry into the transactions entered into by Sartri & Zen
as Sartri had claimed deduction (claiming it to be a revenue expenditure) on 15%running royalty
xi

paid to Zen. Additionally, it apportioned Rs. 10,000 from the revenue generated from every unit
of Riska
TM
towards the payment of lump sum royalty amount and also claimed it as a revenue
expenditure. The matter was taken up by the Tranfer Pricing Officer who concluded that the
arrangement between Sartri and Zen is not according to Arms Length Price and therefore was
required to be adjusted. TPO disallowed the deductions on royalty payments as he found that 15
% royalty rate was excessive in nature based on Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method.
According to the TPO, the only other supplier in the market was Vinshuk which sold comparable
product (Visaka). Sartri contended before the Income Tax Commissioner (Appeals) that
RiskaTM and Visaka were not comparable products owing to the fact that one was sold under a
valid license agreement and the other being an infringing product. Being aggrieved by the order
of Income Tax Commissioner (Appeals), ITAT also upheld the order of Commissioner (Appeals)
on similar grounds. Thereafter an appeal was made to the HC u/s 260(A) of Income Tax Act.
This appeal was dismissed by the HC. On appeal to the SC, Sartri raised a new ground that the
CUP method used by TPO under the provisions of Section 92C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
is unconstitutional as CUP method would not be possible to apply in a federal structure like
Aryavarta where taxing rights are distributed between State and Centre.
Case III: Sartri Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Vinshuk Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Sartri along with Zen filed a Patent Infringement suit in the HC against Vinshuk, Aksmit Impex
& Hun Shui. In this suit, Aksmit Impex pleaded before the High Court that it was a mere
importer and had no role in infringement of any patented product and that the consignment
seized by the Custom Officials was not in accordance with law. Vinshuk raised its defence on the
ground that Sartri had already exhausted its rights in the patented product once it had sold them
xii

and hence it cannot assert patent rights any further. Moreover, Vinshuk contended that the
conditions on sale of the patented product were highly restrictive in nature and Sartri and Zen
had misused the patent rights. Hun Shui contended that it had no liability whatsoever under
primary and/or secondary theories of infringement. The High Court held that there was no patent
infringement. An Appeal was made to the Honble Supreme Court.
xiii

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN ANY VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OR NOT?
The current Writ Petition was filed by Akshit Impex under article 226 before the Honble High
Court. A writ petition can be filed only on the condition of there being a violation of fundamental
rights. In the instant matter, the Petititioner has submitted before the Honble Court that there has
been a violation of the principles of natural justice and the basic structure of the Constitution via
the violation of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Art. 19 (freedom of trade and commerce);
Art. 21 (Right to property and Art. 14 (Doctrine of non arbitrariness).
WHETHER THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SARTRI AND ZEN PTE. LTD. IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARMS
LENGTH PRICING?
It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the decision of the ITAT upholding the decision of the TPO
regarding the determination of Arms Length Price is perverse and is liable to be quashed. The
Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method used by the TPO to compute the Arms Length Price is
inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the most appropriate method
for determination is the Transactional Net Margin method.
WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A PATENT INFRINGEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS?

In the instant case, the doctrine of first sale has not been invoked as it was not a sale but a mere
conditional license to use RiskaTM. The conditions mentioned in the shrink-wrap contract are reasonable
as they were only give the best results of the Patented product. In General Talking Pictures Corp. v.
Western Electric Co. it was held that patent owners could grant restricted licenses to manufacturers and
enforce the restrictions against the licensees purchasers through infringement suits. Also, by the virtue of
Section 48A of the Patents Act, 1970, Vinshuk, Hun Shui and Akshmit Impex are infringers of the Patent.
xiv

PLEADINGS
Issue 1: Whether there has been any violation of Fundamental Rights or not?
Article 2261 provides that notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have
the power, throughout the territorial limits in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue to
any person or authority including the appropriate cases, any government within those territories,
directions, orders of writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari or any of them, (a) for the enforcement of any
Fundamental Right and (b) for any other purpose.2
At the outset it is submitted that the Custom Officials have grossly violated the fundamental
Right to Property3 and Freedom of Trade & Commerce4 of Akshmit Impex, an import-export
company incorporated under the laws of Aryavarta. Further, there has also been a gross violation
of the principles of Natural Justice and the doctrine of anti-arbitrariness.
It is most humbly submitted that Akshmit Impex and Vinshuk Pvt. Ltd. entered into a contact for
the import of 3-D kits from Thaikwando. This contract and business was going smooth until
Sartri Pvt. Ltd. filed a notice with the Custom Officials under the Intellectual Property Rights
(Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the IPR Rules) owing to
which the consignments belonging to Akshmit Impex were seized. 5 These IPR Rules are
promulgated by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred on it vide sub-Section
Constitution of Aryavarta, 1950

T.K. Tope, Constitutional Law of India, (1982 Edn.), 501.
3
Article 21 of the Constitution of Aryavarta, 1950 as given in the Fact Sheet
4
Article 19 of the Constitution of Aryavarta, 1950
5
Fact Sheet
2

(1) of Section 156 of the Custom Act, 19626. These IPR Rules, inter alia, empower the Custom
Authorities to suspend the clearance of those imported goods which infringe Intellectual Property
Rights namely in breach of the intellectual rights globally and which are sought to be imported
without the consent of the right holder or a person duly authorized to do so by the right holder.
After the suspension, the Custom Authorities allow a right holder and the importer or their duly
authorized representative to examine the goods, supply the information to the right holder as well
as the importer and determine as to whether the goods are infringing the Intellectual Property
Rights of the right holder. If on determination, it is found to be so, then such goods confiscated
under Section 111(d) of the Act can be destroyed by the Customs Authorities after obtaining no
objection or concurrence of the right holder or his authorized representative. This is the gist and
purport of the aforesaid Rules.7
The IPR Rules are arbitrary in nature and thus violative of the principles of Natural Justice and
the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
[1.1] There has been a gross violation of the Doctrine of Anti-arbitrariness enshrined in
Art. 14 of the Constitution
The doctrine of anti-arbitrariness was enshrined as a part of our basic structure through various
cases by the apex court. 8 One of the major cases was E P Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu9
wherein the Honble Supreme Court held:
Section 156(1) of the Customs Act states that: Without prejudice to any power to make rules contained elsewhere
in this Act, the Central Government may make rules consistent with this Act generally to carry out the purposes of
this Act.
7
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericcson V UOI, Delhi High Court on 13.07.2012
8
Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243
6

From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact
equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a
republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an
act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic
and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Art. 14, and if it affects any
matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Art. 16. Arts. 14 and 16
strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment.
They require that State action must be
based on valent relevant principles
applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous
or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the
operative reason for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the
antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and
outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to mala fide
exercise of power and that is hit by Arts.14 and 16. Mala fide exercise of Power and
arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice.
Further, in M Nagraj V Union of India10 it has been held that the contents of Article 14 got
expanded conceptually and has recognised the principles to comprehend the doctrine of
promissory estoppels non arbitrariness, compliance with rules of natural justice eschewing
irrationality, etc. It has been held in Onkar Lal Bajaj V Union of India11 that non application of
mind is a facet of arbitrary exercise of power. Also in Rajasthan State Road Transport
1974 SCR (2) 348

(2006) 8 SCC 212
11
AIR 2003 SC 2562
10

Corporation V Bal Mukund Bairawa12 it has been held that non-compliance with the rules of
natural justice is amounts to arbitrariness violating Art. 14.
On a perusal of the IPR Rules, it could be clearly observed that the power of the Deputy
Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, to
suspend the clearance of goods is unfettered and the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or
Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, can be exercised as per his own whims
and fancies. The only phrase which appears to restrict this unbridled power is reason to believe
that the imported goods are suspected to be goods infringing intellectual property rights. The
IPR Rules do not lay down any guidelines for the formation of the opinion of the Commissioner
as to the genuineness of the goods being imported and thus leaves the formation of such opinion
and exercise of such power to the sweet will of the commissioner. As has been held in a plethora
of judgments13 that any legislation which give a wide power to the executive to select cases for
special treatment, without indicating the policy, may be set aside as violative of equality as
mentioned in Art. 14.
On one hand, provisions which lay down the policy are likely to be upheld. But, on the other
hand, the provisions which fail to give such guidance are likely to be invalidated and declared to
be void. Thus, the IPR Rules which do not lay down any such procedure are likely to be struck
down.
[1.2] There has been a gross abuse of the Principles of Natural Justice
12
13
(2009) 4 SCC 317

Meenakshi Mills V Vishwanath, AIR 1955 SC 13; Ajit Singh V State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 856

It is further submitted that the IPR Rules are not in consonance with the principles of Natural
Justice and are thus violative of the basic structure of the constitution. The principles of natural
justice comprise mainly of two maxims viz. Nemo iudex in causa sua as well as audi alterem
partem. Audi alterem partem means that no party shall be condemned unheard.14 On perusal of
the IPR Rules it can be observed that there is no provision which relates to the importer having a
chance to argue or present his stand before the commissioner prior to the seizure of the goods or
any other action by the custom authorities. This is a gross violation of the maxim audi alterem
partem.
In Kesar Enterprises Ltd. V State of Uttar Pradesh15 it has been held that the principles of natural
justice are to check the arbitrary exercise of power by the state or its functionaries. Thus this
gross violation of principles of natural justice should be put to an end and as has been held in
Justice P D Dinakaran V Honble Judges Enquiry Committee 16 that the doctrine of natural
justice is not only to secure justice but also to prevent miscarriage of justice. In Maneka
Gandhi17, the passport of the petitioner-journalist was impounded by the Indian Govt. in public
interest. No opportunity was given to the petitioner before taking the impugned action. The
Supreme Court held that that the order was violative of the principles of natural justice.
Similarly, the suspension of the clearance of goods by the custom officials without giving any
opportunity to the importer to present his case is a gross violation of the principles of natural
justice.
14
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath AIR 1986 SC 1571
AIR 2011 SC 2709
16
(2011) 8 SCC 380
17
AIR 1978 SC 597
15

In the instant case, Sartri had filed a notice with the custom officials under Rule 3 pursuant to
which the custom officials had seized the consignment under Rule 7(1)(a).18 It is submitted that
the custom officials did not comply with Rule 7(2) of the IPR Rules which states that:
(2) The Deputy Commissioner of Customs
or Assistant Commissioner of
Customs , as the case may be, shall immediately inform the importer and the
right holder or their respective authorised representatives through a letter
issued by speed post or through electronic mode of the suspension of clearance
of the goods and shall state the reasons for such suspension.19
No such information pertaining to the suspension of clearance of goods was transmitted to the
importer, herein Akshmit Impex. The very act of non-compliance with the IPR Rules is against
the procedure of law and thus is violative of the Fundamental Rights. Thus, the principle of
natural justice applies. Firstly, the IPR Rules by itself do not provide any opportunity for the
importer to present his case. Secondly, there is just one provision which states that the
information relating to the suspension of the clearance of goods has to be communicated to the
importer and that one single provision has not been complied with in the instant case which
clearly violates the principles of natural justice. In Dalicha Suketu V Chairman20 it has been
held that the order of rustication in violation of rule of audi alterem partem would not be proper
and the warnings to students or intimation to the parents would not amount to compliance of the
rule of audi alterem partem.(emphasis supplied)
18
Fact Sheet
http://www.cbec.gov.in/htdocs-cbec/customs/cs-act/formatted-htmls/ipr-enforcementrules
20
AIR 2012 Guj 62
19

Further in the Olga Tellis case21, it has been held that in spite of the statutory provision about
removal of unauthorised construction by the commissioner without notice, the court held that it
was merely an enabling provision and not a command not to issue notice before demolition of
structure. The discretion was, therefore, required to be exercised in consonance with the
principles of natural justice.
It is submitted that in the instant case Commissioner was not the appropriate authority to
determine as to whether the imported goods were infringing the intellectual patent rights of the
right holder. A civil court of competent jurisdiction is the only forum to decide such violations.
Thus unless there is any order from any such court to this effect, the commissioner cannot have a
reason to believe that the goods being imported are infringing the patent rights of the right
holder. The provisions of the Patents Act state that registration of patent per se does not lead to
any presumption of its validity inasmuch as whenever suit for injunction is filed by the patent
holder on the basis of such registration, the defendant can always set up a defence that
registration was not valid and it is for the Civil Court to go into this aspect without seeking
cancellation of the registered patent from the registering authorities. It is submitted that such
mechanism was not available with the customs authorities and therefore, they were incompetent
to arrive at any such conclusion and could not act only on the basis that there was valid
registration in favour of the patent holder. Therefore, the custom officials could not act without
their being an injunction order in favour of the patent holder passed by the Civil Court and as
Sartri had not approached the patent court to assert its claim to patent and to seek injunction
21
(1985) 3 SCC 545

against the release of the consignment the custom officials had no authority to pass order of
suspension of clearance of its goods.22
[1.3] The Respondents have also deemed to cause a gross violation of Art. 21 of the
Constitution of Aryavarta
It is further submitted that the seizure of the consignments has also resulted in the violation of
Art. 21 of the Aryavartan Constitution 23 . The seizure has resulted into the violation of the
fundamental right to property. According to Black's Law Dictionary, the word 'property' is used
to denote everything which is the subject of ownership, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or
intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal, everything that has an exchangeable value or
which goes to make up wealth or estate. In Commissioner H.R.E v. LT Swamar24 court observed
that there is no reason why the word property as used in Article 19(1)(f) of Constitution, should
not be given liberal and wider meaning and should not be extended to those well-recognized
types which have the sigma or characteristics of property rights. Further in M.M Pathak v. Union
of India25 the Supreme Court reiterated and emphasized that the word property cannot have one
meaning in Article 19(1)(f) another meaning in Article 31 clause (1) still another in Article 31
clause (2). Property must have the same connotation in all the three Articles. Property within the
meaning of Article 19(1)(f) and clause 2 of Article 31 comprises every form of property, tangible
or intangible, including debts and choses in action, such as unpaid accumulation of wages,
pension and cash grant.
22
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericcson V UOI

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property except according to procedure established by law.
24
AIR 1954 SC 282
25
AIR 1978 SC 803
23

In M/S. Entertainment Network India Ltd. V M/S. Super Cassettee Industries Ltd.26 it has been
argued and held that: The ownership of any copyright like ownership of any other property must
be considered having regard to the principles contained in Article 19(1)(g) read with Article
300A of the Constitution, besides, the human rights on property An owner of a copyright
indisputably has a right akin to the right of property. It is also a human right. Now, human rights
have started gaining a multifaceted approach.
Also, Sec 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 lays down that property of any kind whether
tangible or intangible may be transferred under this act.
Thus from the above discussion it is clear that the term property under article 300-A or under
Art. 21, as in this case, cannot be restricted only to immovable property and thus also includes
movable and tangible & intangible property also.
[1.4] The Respondents have also violated Art. 19 of the Constitution of Aryavarta
In the light of the above discussion the counsel for the petitioner submits humbly before the
Honble Court that due to the act of the seizure of the consignments by the custom officials, the
fundamental right to property of the petitioner has been violated. It is further submitted that due
to such seizure of consignments the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Trade & Commerce
guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) has also been violated. Freedoms guaranteed by Art. 19 are
subject only to the restrictions provided under Art. 19(2). In The Collector Of Customs, Madras
vs Nathella Sampathu Chetty27 the Supreme Court observed that it was said on the other side that
the requirement in s. 178 A that the officer seizing the gold must entertain 'a reasonable belief
26
27
CA NO. 5114 OF 2005 on 16.05.2008 (SC)

AIR 1962 SC 316

that the gold was smuggled provided an adequate safeguard to the person affected which would
render the restriction imposed reasonable within cls. (5) & (6) of
Art.19. This argument is
untenable. If the reasonable belief was a matter for the subjective satisfaction, of the seizing
officer, as sit provides no safeguard at all for the person from whom the gold is seized. Even if,
on the other hand, the test is objective, in the sense that at the stage of the adjudication under s.
182 the grounds upon which the belief was entertained could be the subject matter of enquiry it
furnishes no safeguard either, because the "reasonableness" of the belief regarding the smuggled
character of the gold would have to be judged by the adjudicating officer with reference to the
information which the seizing officer had at the moment of seizure, and that information must
necessarily have been obtained behind the back of the person from whom the gold had been
seized and before the officer commenced any enquiry to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the
information conveyed to him.
In the light of above discussion, the counsel submits that the seizure of the consignments by the
custom officials was violative of the Arts. 21 and 19(1)(g) and thus the writ petition should be
allowed by this Honble Court.
Issue 2: Whether the Agreement between Sartri Pvt. Ltd. and Zen Pte. Ltd. is in
accordance with arms length pricing?
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Supreme Court of Aryavarta that the arrangement
between Sartri Pvt. Ltd. and Zen Pte. Ltd. has been made in accordance with the Arms Length
principle. Further, the order passed by learned ITAT upholding the decision of the TPO
10

regarding the determination of Arms Length Price (hereinafter ALP) is perverse and is liable
to be quashed. It is hereby contended that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method
(hereinafter CUP) is inapplicable in the present matter, and the most appropriate method
(hereinafter MAM) as envisaged in Section 92C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter
ITA, 1961) is the Transactional Net Margin method (hereinafter TNMM).
The term arms length price refers to the price applied in a transaction between persons other
than associated enterprises, in uncontrolled conditions. 28 Section 92C(1) of the ITA, 1961
requires computation of the ALP in relation to an international transaction by use of the most
appropriate method. Rule 10C(1) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter ITR, 1962) defines
the most appropriate method as the method which is best suited to the facts and circumstances
of each particular international transaction. As per Rule 10C(2) the MAM has to be selected
having regard to number of factors which are enumerated therein.
[2.1] The Comparable Uncontrolled Price method is inapplicable due to material
differences affecting Functional and Product comparability
In the present matter, the TPO has applied an external CUP and has benchmarked the price (15%
royalty) paid as per the transaction between Sartri Pvt. Ltd. and Zen Pte. Ltd. regarding sale of
RiskaTM, against the price paid in the uncontrolled transaction, i.e. the transaction between
Vinshuk Pvt. Ltd. and Aksmit Impex regarding sale of Visaka. It is submitted that the transaction
28
Section 92F, Income Tax Act, 1961
11

between RGS Public Ltd. and Maneka Ireland Ltd. cannot be taken into consideration while
determining transfer price as the same is a controlled transaction.29
The CUP method involves determination of the price paid for a property transferred in a
comparable uncontrolled transaction which is then suitably adjusted to account for material
differences.30 The bedrock of this method is the identification of an identical transaction, in a
situation where a price is charged for products or services between unrelated parties. While
applying CUP the comparability between controlled and uncontrolled transactions should not be
only judged from the point of product comparability, but should also take into consideration the
effect on price of other broader business functions. Even minor differences in contractual terms
or economic conditions, geographical areas, risks assumed, functions assumed etc. could affect
the amount charged in an uncontrolled transaction.31
Product comparability is important in the application the CUP method, as differences in products
will result in different prices. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of DIT (International
Taxation), Mumbai v. Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc.32 emphasized the functional comparability
ascertained through FAR analysis (analysis of the functions performed, and associated resources
employed, by the taxpayer in the controlled and uncontrolled transactions) for benchmarking
exercise for determination of ALP of an international transaction. 33 The employment of a
commercial intangible asset, such as Aryavarta Patent AR420100 which has a successful and
29
Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, (2007) 112 TTJ Delhi 408
Rule 10B(1)(a), Income Tax Rules, 1962
31
Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd. v. ACIT, 249 ITR (AT) 32
32
2006 ITR (284) 260
33
Rule 10B(2)(b), Income Tax Rules, 1962
30
12

strong marketing effect 34 entitles the Licensor to recover its R&D costs through licensing
arrangements, reflected in a higher price paid by Sartri in the form of royalty. One of the primary
factors for selection and application of the MAM for determining the ALP is the degree of
comparability between the controlled transactions and uncontrolled comparables. Given that the
transaction between Vinshuk and Aksmit Impex involves the sale of refurbished goods and lacks
the employment of any commercial intangible property, the FAR analysis yields material
differences which cannot be adjusted and thus, disqualifies the uncontrolled transaction from
being compared through the high threshold of CUP.35
[2.2]The Transactional Net Margin method is the most appropriate method under section
92C(1)
By virtue of the well-known rule of strict construction of taxing statutes36. Courts have stated
from time to time that the methods mentioned in Section 92C(1) have not been enumerated in
order of priority and it is the MAM which must be applied.37 Of the five methods mentioned
under Section 92C(1), both Resale Price Method and Cost Plus Method must be disqualified as
MAM due to their dependence on gross profit margins, which cannot be calculated on the basis
of the available data. Further, Profit Split Method is applied in order to compute the ALP in
situations involving multiple inter-related transaction which cannot be evaluated separately.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the MAM in the present case is the TNMM.
34
Paragraph 2 of Fact Sheet

Rule 10B(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962
36
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Gujarat v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana, AIR 1998 SC 120
37
Serdia Pharmaceuticals (India) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, [2011] 44 SOT 391(Mum)
35
13

TNMM requires comparison between net profit margin derived from the operation of the
uncontrolled parties and net profit margin derived by an associated enterprise on similar
operation.38 Net profit equals the operating profit before interest and taxes of a company. While
CUP requires high comparability, TNMM requires establishing comparability at a broad
functional level. Further, net margins (e.g. return on assets, operating income to sales, and
possibly other measures of net profit) are less affected by transactional differences than is the
case with price, as used in CUP. 39 Thus, the aforementioned differences arising due to
employment of intangible assets plays a smaller role and does not immediately disqualify the
TNMM.
In the present controlled transaction, the net profit is Rs. 25000 on a revenue of Rs. 100000.
Clearly the net margin is 25%.40 In the uncontrolled transaction, Vinshuk earns Rs. 20000 for
each unit sold at Rs. 75000, after deductions. Therefore, the net margin is 26.66%. The
somewhat higher lower net margin of Sartri may be attributed to the employment of business
strategies including market penetration schemes. 41 Further, Sartri also sells RiskaTM at a
discounted rate under a variety of schemes, thus, reducing the overall net profit margin. These
differences may be suitably adjusted, and it is seen that the arrangement between Sartri and Zen
conforms to the adjusted ALP.
38
Rule 10B(1)(e) of the Income Tax rules, 1962

Paragraph 2.62 of OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations July
2010
40
Paragraph 5 of the Fact Sheet.
41
Paragraph 1.59 and 1.60 of OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax
Administrations July 2010
39
14

Issue 3: Whether there has been a patent infringement on behalf of the Respondents?
It is most respectfully submitted to this Honble Court that Sartri Pvt. Ltd. along with Zen Pte.
Ltd. filed a Patent Infringement suit in the Honble High Court against Vinshuk, Aksmit Impex
& Hun Shui. In this suit, Aksmit Impex pleaded before the Honble High Court that it was a
mere importer and had no role in infringement of any patented product and that the consignment
seized by the Custom Officials was not in accordance with law. The High Court held that there
was no patent infringement.
[3.1] Whether the exhaustion doctrine is applicable?
Section 48A (1)(a) of Patents Act, 1970 reads, whoseoever without authority makes, uses,
offers to sell or sells any patented invention, within Aryavarta or imports into Aryavarta any
patented invention during the term of the patent therfor, infringes the patent. In arguendo,
Sartri sold RiskaTM being authorized by Zen for the same42
According to the doctrine of first sale, a patented items initial authorized sale terminates all
patent rights to that item.43
And, A conditional sale is a sale in which the patentee restricts the post-sale rights of a
purchaser to use the patent article through an enforceable contract.44
The impugned 3-D kits were coupled with shrink-wrap contracts45, which made this a contractual
arrangement for mere use and not sale. It was however held in Braun Medical Inc v Abbott
42
Para 5, Page 4 of the Moot Compromis

Quanta Computer, Inc et al v. LG Electronics, Inc, 533 U.S. 617 (2008)
44
See Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700, 703-04 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
43
15

Labs Inc. 46 that The Exhaustion doctrine does not apply to an expressly conditional sale or
license.
But the Federal Circuit has held that a conditional sale, in which the patentee restricts the right of
the purchaser to use the patented article through an enforceable contract, can prevent exhaustion
and preserve the patentees right to sue for infringement if the condition is not met or the
restriction is violated.47
The Supreme Court approved of field-of-use restrictions, which limit use of a patented invention
to a specified application or market 48 In General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric
Co.49it was held that patent owners could grant restricted licenses to manufacturers and enforce
the restrictions against the licensees purchasers through infringement suits. The Court in
Mitchell v. Hawley50 stated that the licensees purchaser could not obtain a right that the licensee
was not authorized to sell.51
The court emphasized that restrictive patent licenses52 were historically recognized and legal.53
In B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories54, the Federal Circuit explained that exhaustion
does not apply to an expressly conditional sale or license because it is reasonable to infer that the
45

124 F. 3d, 1419, 1426 (Fed. Cic. 1997)
47
B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Supra Note 3; 976 F.2d 700, 709 (Fed.
Cir. 1992); PATENTS AND THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 14.3 (8th ed., BNA, 2007)
48
See generally CHISUM, supra note 15, at 19.04(3)(a); R. CARL MOY, MOYS WALKER ON PATENTS at
18:34 (4th ed. 2008).)
49
304 U.S. 587 (1938)
50
83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 544 (1872)
51
Supra
52
Supra
53
Supra
54
124 F.3d 1419, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
46
16

parties negotiated a price that only reflected the value of the limited use rights conferred by the
patentee.
It is humbly submitted to the Honble Court that the Respondents refurbished the kits and sold
them at a cheaper price. The Petition found out that there were multiple complaints from the
customers regarding the bad quality of the printing when used with the kits. On further
investigation, the Petitioner found out that there were certain number of refurbished kits flowing
in the market which affected the printing quality and resulted in loss of goodwill and customer
relationship for Sartri.
There is a two-part test to determine whether the sale of a product exhausts a patent. The Court
relied on the Univis case55 and provided a two-part test for determining whether the sale of an
incomplete product exhausts the patent rights in that product. First, the incomplete product must
have no reasonable use other than practicing the patents. In reaching this decision, the Court
pointed to whether the product embodied "essential features" of the patented invention or the
inventive aspects of the patented methods.56 Thus, the exhaustion doctrine is not defeated by the
possibility of overseas sales that would use the patented technology without infringing the
patent.57 Second, the incomplete product must "substantially embody the patent" and "all but
completely practice the patent." Thus, sale of an incomplete product exhausts the patent if the
only "steps necessary to practice the patent is the application of "common processes" or the
addition of "standard parts."
55
United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241 (1942); Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U.S. 436
(1940) (The Univis and Ethyl cases both involved price restrictions implemented subsequent to the first sale of the
patented products for compensation.
56
Quanta Computer, 128 S.Ct. at 2119.
57
d. at 2119 n.6.
17

It is open to the patentee, by virtue of his statutory monopoly, to make a sale sub modo, or
accompanied by restrictive conditions which would not apply in the case of ordinary chattels; the
imposition of these conditions in the case of sale is not presumed, but, on the contrary, a sale
having occurred, the presumption is that the full right of ownership was meant to be vested in the
purchaser while ... the owners rights in a patented chattel would be limited, if there is brought
home to him the knowledge of conditions imposed, by the patentee or those representing the
patentee, upon him at the time of sale.
While an authorized first-sale exhausts the patent holder's rights, an unauthorized or conditional
sale does not bar the patentee from asserting infringement.
In its opinion, the court looked to earlier Supreme Court decisions regarding the conditional sale
of patented devices and stated the first formulation of the conditional sale doctrine, noting that
"unless the condition violates some other law or policy (in the patent field, notably the misuse or
antitrust law), private parties retain the freedom to contract concerning conditions of sale." In
evaluating whether the condition violates law or policy, the Federal Circuit stated that "the
appropriate criterion is whether . . . the restriction is reasonably within the patent grant, or
whether the patentee has ventured beyond the patent grant and into behavior having an
anticompetitive effect not justifiable under the rule of reason."58
Furthermore, the court stated that the "right to exclude may be waived in whole or in part"
therefore, giving the patentee the right to waive only a portion of that exclusive right.59
58
59
Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc.

ibid
18

This exhaustion doctrine, however, does not apply to an expressly conditional sale or license. In
such a transaction, it is more reasonable to infer that the parties negotiated a price that reflects
only the value of the "use" rights conferred by the patentee. As a result, express conditions
accompanying the sale or license of a patented product are generally upheld. Such express
conditions, however, are contractual in nature and are subject to antitrust, patent, contract, and
any other applicable law, as well as equitable considerations such as patent misuse. Accordingly,
conditions that violate some law or equitable consideration are unenforceable. On the other hand,
violation of valid conditions entitles the patentee to a remedy for either patent infringement or
breach of contract. This, then, is the general framework.60
In addition, in B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories61 it was held that "established a
principle that contractual restrictions could vitiate an implication that a purchaser from a
patentee had an implied license to use patented goods, thereby trumping patent exhaustion."62
Specifically, the Federal Circuit explained that exhaustion was not applicable to an expressly
conditional sale or license because it is reasonable to infer that the parties negotiated a price that
only reflecting only the value limited use rights conferred by the patentee. 63
The conditional sale doctrine now applies only to "use restrictions placed on the direct
purchaser of a patented invention." Under this interpretation, the Quanta decision would only
apply to "attempts by a patent owner to use licensing restrictions to reach through and enjoin
subsequent purchasers and users of the patented invention." Under this reasoning, for the first
sale or license (and only the first) of an item, a patent owner would be able to add restrictions in
60
B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories124 F.3d 1419, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
ibid
62
ibid
63
Lexmark Intl, Inc v. Impression prods., Inc
61
19

accordance with the conditional sale doctrine and obtain the most precise, utility-maximizing
bargain possible.64
Further, Under Section 48A(1)(b), Whoever actively induces infringement of Patents shall be
liable as an infringer. Akshmit Impex which was an import-export company incorporated under
Aryavarta Law, for import of pre-used RiskaTM kits from HunShui and imported and supplied
them to Aryavarta and supplied them to Vinshuk. 65
In the writ petition case, Aksmit Impexs seizure is totally justified as the patent has been
infringed and the consignment carried illegal goods. As, European Union follows Regional
Exhaustion when it comes to Intellectual Property, the import is illegal. Also, under Section
48A(1)(c), Hunshui is a contributory infringer as it knew, or had a reason to know that the trade
of the impugned 3-D kits was bad in law and would cause infringement of the patent.
64
65
National Phonograph Company of Australia Ltd. v. Menck , [1911] [28] R.P.C. 229, 248.
20

PRAYER
IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, CASES AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONER/APPELLANTS HUMBLY REQUESTS THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTA TO:
1.
TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION OF THE PETITIONER AND THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION OF
THE APPELLANT.
2. TO PASS A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO RELEASE THE CONSIGNMENT

3. TO SET ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED HIGH COURT OF SINHABAD PASSED IN FAVOR
OF THE RESPONDENTS.
4. TO DECLARE THE IPR ENFORCEMENT RULES AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

5. TO DECLARE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE TPO IS
PERVERSE AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED
6. TO HOLD THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAVE INFRINGED THE PATENT AND THEREFORE GRANT
A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE UNFAIR USE OF RISKA
AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION OR RELIEF THAT THE COURT MAY DEEM FIT SO THAT
THE MERITS OF THE CASE MEET THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY
AND
GOOD
CONSCIENCE.
FOR
THIS ACT OF
KINDNESS,
THE
PETITIONER/APPELLANTS
SHALL DUTY BOUND FOREVER
PRAY.
SD/COUNSELS FOR PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

AKSMIT IMPEX
SARTRI PVT. LTD.
ZEN PTE. LTD.
xvi

Memorandum For The Petitioner © With 3rd The Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, IIT Kharagpur

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Memorandum For The Petitioner © With 3rd The Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, IIT Kharagpur

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY, KHARAGPUR, 2016

BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTA

WRIT PETITION CLUBBED WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

AKSMIT IMPEX ..... .PETITIONER

THE CUSTOM OFFICIALS...... RESPONDENT

VINSHUK PVT. LTD. & ORSRESPONDENTS

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

Scheme 1: No discount- No terms & conditions.

Scheme 2: Discount 40%- conditions mentioned hereunder:

Scheme 3: (only for users who availed Scheme 1) Discount on refilling of

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

Case I: Aksmit Impex v. The Custom Officials

kits and notice was given to

Case II: Sartri Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Tax

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A PATENT INFRINGEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

Constitution of Aryavarta, 1950

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

based on valent relevant principles

1974 SCR (2) 348

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

(2009) 4 SCC 317

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

(1985) 3 SCC 545

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANTS

RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF