This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2023 WIPO IP Judges Forum.
Session 6: Rules of Evidence in Intellectual Property Litigation
Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Kaduna Judicial Division [2002]: Arewa Textiles Plc & Ors v Finetex Ltd [2002] LPELR-5361 (CA)
Date of judgment: November 12, 2002
Issuing authority: Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Kaduna Judicial Division
Level of the issuing authority: Appellate instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Civin( �/span>
Subject matter: Enforcement of IP and Related Laws; Patents (Inventions)
Plaintiff: Finetex Limited [respondent; plaintiff in original suit]
Defendant(s): Arewa Textiles Plc and others (Mr. Pong Wing Hong, Mr. Edison Padilla, Mr. Antonio P. Zaplan) [appellants; defendants in original suit]
Keywords: Evidence, Burden of proof, Nature of evidence required to prove patent infringement
Basic facts: Finetex Ltd. (the Plaintiff) instituted an action at the Federal High Court against Arewa Textiles and three others (the Defendants) for infringement of its patent to a “method and apparatus” of producing textile material. The Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The Federal High Court acceded to the relief claimed by the Plaintiff, awarding damages of five million naira against Arewa Textiles and one million naira against each of the remaining Defendants.
The Defendants appealed the decision of the Federal High Court to the Court of Appeal in Kaduna. The Court of Appeal agreed to review the issue of whether Finetex Ltd. “proved its case that the appellants [originally Defendants] breached its right to a patent.”
Held: The Court of Appeal set aside the orders of the Federal High Court and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims, finding that Finetex Ltd. had failed to prove patent infringement by the Defendants.
Relevant holdings in relation to rules of evidence in intellectual property litigation: The Court of Appeal held that, having proffered no evidence to prove that the Defendants stole and used its patented process, the Plaintiff could not rely on the argument that it was the only textile manufacturer producing material by the process in question.
The Court reasoned that in an infringement action, the plaintiff bears the burden of providing evidence to demonstrate that the defendant(s) stole and used a process to produce goods in the market. The absence of such evidence amounts to “mere conjecture,” insufficient to support an action for patent theft.
Relevant legislation:
Patents and Design Act (Chapter 344)