Saturday, 04 December 2010 00:00 Kunle Olasanmi    .Share 0
Kunle Olasanmi, Abuja

A FEDERAL High Court sitting in Abuja has stopped the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, from awarding contract for the importation of the Direct Data Capturing Machines.

The order also includes any other equipment associated with the machines for the registration of eligible voters for the 2011 general elections or any other elections.

The order subsists pending the hearing and determination of a motion on Notice filed before it by an indigenous company, Bedding Holdings Limited.


Bedding filed a suit against INEC, its chairman, Prof Attahiru Jega, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke, and three companies, Haier Electrical Appliances Corporation Ltd, Zinox Technologies Ltd and Avante International Technology Incorporated.

The plaintiff is insisting that it was the only company with the patent right to produce Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballox Boxes, ECTBB, as well as the patentee in respect of Proof of Address System/Scheme, PASS, used for the collation and collection of the names, age, sex, Address, finger print, geographical description and location of various places in the country, including the bio-data of every person resident in Nigeria.

In a motion ex-parte, the plaitiff accused INEC of infringing on its patent right by contracting the 3 external companies to produce voters register for the 2011 general elections without first seeking and obtaining a written license, consent and authority from it.

While urging the court to award it N10 billion as damages for act of infringement committed by the defendants, it equally sought an order of interim injunction restraining INEC from going ahead with its planned voters registration exercise pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

It had argued that it would be in the interest of justice for the court to make the order so as to preserve the ‘Res’ of the action instituted before it.

Justice Ibrahim Auta granted the request of the plaintiff and fixed December 13, to hear the substantive suit.

The restraining order issued by the court yesterday, reads, “that the Defendants/Respondents either by themselves, agents, privies, contractors, surrogates, or any other person or persons claiming through them, are restrained from continuing the process of considering proposals of tendering/bidding for, producing, procuring, supplying, acquiring, importing, buying, receiving, selling, leasing, alienating, applying or otherwise using the Direct Data Capturing Machines, Laptops and/or any other equipment ancillary to, or associated with the process and application of the said machines/equipment about to be supplied or being supplied by the 4th – 6th Defendants/ respondents to the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents for the registration of voters and/or compilation, production and use of a Voters’ Register for the 2011 general elections or any other elections whatsoever, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction filed before this court”.

The plaintiff is insisting that it was the only company with the patent right to produce Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballox Boxes, ECTBB, as well as the patentee in respect of Proof of Address System/Scheme, PASS, used for the collation and collection of the names, age, sex, Address, finger print, geographical description and location of various places in the country, including the bio-data of every person resident in Nigeria.

The ABNs of 2011 have started their acts.
Whoever stands in the way of a free and fair election in Nigeria in 2011, judge, ruler, lawyer or critic, individual or group must start to look for another country as they make their plans!!!

passyjango:

As far as I am concerned if INEC is infringing on the patent rights of this company, then they have the right to seek redress in the courts. If 2011 elections fail because of this it is not the company or judges or lawyers that should be blamed, but INEC for not following due process.

excanny:

You folks need to calm down your nerves. I'm quite sure an appeal court will over rule this judgment. This kinds of claims are selfish and ill-timed. They should take their [b]case to courts after the elections a[/b]nd not disrupt INEC's job.

likeme:

What is the relationship between INEC and patent on a device(finished product).All INEC want is a finished product. A DDC. if the company is having issue with the infringement of his patent. He should got to patient court and sue the manufactures using his patent not the end user that has interest in a product.

It's like requesting for a cola drink that can quench thirst and Cocacola is sueing end user for ordering Zobo. A replica of cocacola.

maro23:

We like to spend moneys we don't have, won't it have been cheaper to use[b] option A4,[/b] counting people in a line?

LeoMax:

Its simple to beat this legal copyright issues; Instea of calling the machine, DATA CAPTURING MACHINE, INEC should call the machine, "election database equipment". Patent rights and sole distributionship rights can be averted with different Brand name for the same product. "Indomie", O-noodle" Mimi" all same shiit. but no copyright and sole distribution rights evoked.

The plaintiff is insisting that it was the only company with the patent right to produce Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballox Boxes, ECTBB, as well as the patentee in respect of Proof of Address System/Scheme, PASS, used for the collation and collection of the names, age, sex, Address, finger print, geographical description and location of various places in the country, including the bio-data of every person resident in Nigeria.

In a motion ex-parte, the plaitiff accused INEC of infringing on its patent right by contracting the 3 external companies to produce voters register for the 2011 general elections without first seeking and obtaining a written license, consent and authority from it.

That the last general elections were fraught with many irregularities is no longer news. What might be news to many is that the Independent National Electoral Election (INEC) acted with impunity on its contractual obligations to its customers.

As a body widely known to have petite or no respect for the rule of law, the Independent National Electoral Commission almost operated as if it were above the laws of the land. Aside from disobeying court orders, INEC was also found wanting in areas of contractual obligations.

This loathsome side of INEC was brought to fore recently when Bedding Holdings Limited instituted an action against INEC and seven others to compel INEC to compensate her for infringement of her patent right. Bedding Holdings Limited asked the court to confiscate over N3.5 billion balance payment for the production of the transparent ballot boxes used in the last general elections.

The Independent National Electoral Commission infringed on the patent right of Bedding Nigeria Limited by using the ballot boxes without the consent of the company.

To further show the little respect INEC has for the laws of the land, it was not represented at the court when the case came up for mentioning. INEC, however, filed an objection asking the court to strike out the suit for the plaintiff�s failure to disclose reasonable cause of action.

This is an attempt by INEC to pervert the cause of justice. By throwing out INEC�s objection, the honourable court must be praised for living up to the expectations of Bedding Holdings Limited in the company�s attempt to pursue its rights.

It is worthy to note that if INEC is allowed to go unpunished with this magnitude of flagrant abuse of power, most individuals and corporate bodies that are interested in doing legitimate business with government agencies will be disillusioned. The country�s image both locally and internationally will wane drastically.

Therefore, our efforts at attracting foreign investors will be an exercise in futility. Or how else can one explain a situation where some government agencies can not be compelled to fulfill its contractual obligations to its customers?

The damage caused by pirates in this country cannot be over-emphasized. The film industry is fighting pirates on a daily basis and pirated goods are being destroyed to put a stop to this ugly trend. The treatment meted out to Bedding Holdings Limited is not different from the harm that pirates are causing to the film industry.

It is common practice these days for some government agencies to request for proposals from contractors on major projects. Once these proposals are submitted by determined contractors, the jobs end up being given to mistresses and lady friends of the chief executives of the organization without the consent of the person whose original idea is being used. This wicked and criminal act is seriously gaining ground. All hands must be on deck to curtail the trend.

A punitive measure against INEC would serve as deterrent to other would be defaulters and also build public confidence in government institutions. At the end of the journey, no public institution would perceive itself as too big to be subjected to the laws of the land.

Firm sues INEC for N3.5bn over ballot boxes

By Lemmy Ughegbe
Thursday, February 20, 2003

ABUJA—A FIRM, La’Satome Nigeria Limited, has dragged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to court for alleged usurpation of its patent right on the transparent ballot boxes to be used for the April 19, 2003 polls, claiming N3.5 billion as damages from the electoral body and two others. In suit no: FHC/ABJ/CS/50/2003 between La’Satome Nigeria Limited (Plaintiff) and Bedding Holdings Limited, Registrar of Patents and Designs and INEC (1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively), the plaintiff contend that the patent licence on the boxes was its and as such INEC had no right to import the boxes directly or through the 1st defendant (Bedding Holdings Ltd.).

At yesterday’s hearing, the plaintiff via a motion ex-parte (application of urgency), therefore, prayed the court to grant it an interim injunction restraining the electoral body from importing by itself or through the 1st defendant or paying for the importation of the transparent ballot to itself or the 1st defendant. In a statement of claim filed by counsel to the plaintiff, Uche Agomoh, the plaintiff averred that "it is the original inventor of the transparent ballot box which the electoral body expects to use for the April general elections across the nation."

The plaintiff further averred that it holds the registered patent no. RP 12994 and registered design number RP 5946 in respect of the box which was designed in 1987 by its Managing Director, Mr. Osato Ize-Iyamu, as a young entrepreneur in the fabrication business.

Consequently, the plaintiff is seeking an order of court transferring all rights in the application for and in patent No RP 12994 and design No RD 5946 in respect of the transparent ballot box to it. It also prays for an order setting aside the licence procured by INEC (from Bedding Holdings) which gives it the wherewithal to import the transparent box. The plaintiff is demanding N3.5 billion as damages for loses suffered by it as a result of the usurpation of its patent licence and other consequential losses. In his ruling on the application, the presiding judge, Justice Jonah Adah, appealed to the applicant to step down the application, pointing out the implication of the order sought therein to the forthcoming general elections.

However, he granted an order for accelerated hearing in to the substantive suit because, according to him, the final determination of the action expeditiously was needed.

Patent dispute may disrupt 2011 poll
Published on 02 December 2010 with 0 comments
[Post a Comment]

ACHILLEUS-CHUD UCHEGBU (Abuja Bureau Chief)

ATTEMPT by President Goodluck Jonathan and Chairman of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Attahiru Jega, to deliver free and fair elections in 2011 may fail if issues of denial and infringement on patents, allegedly belonging to Bedding Holdings Limited are not urgently resolved.

The company has been at loggerheads with INEC over alleged infringement on its patents as they affect the transparent ballot boxes and electronic collapsible transparent ballot boxes for which several law suits subsist in court.

In a letter to President Jonathan complaining about gross infringement on its patents, dated November 25, 2010 signed by Chief Assam E. Assam (SAN), and received at the President�s office on November 29, 2010, lawyers to the patent owner warned that unless the issues are quickly resolved, the upcoming elections may be jeopardized.

In the letter entitled: "Sustained conspiracy by Emchai Ltd and INEC to defraud and infringe patents and designs rights as a basis for the award of contract for the supply of collapsible transparent ballot boxes for the 2011 general elections by the Federal Executive Council," Chief Assam said the infringement of the patent rights of Bedding Holdings Limited would greatly jeopardize free and fair elections in the country next year.

According to him, the Federal Executive Council (FEC) may have been deceived by a memo from INEC to making it believe that Emchai Ltd was the original patentee for collapsible transparent ballot boxes for which a supply contract had been awarded by INEC. It said Emchai Ltd is not a repository of patents for the said boxes.

Noting that Bedding Holdings Limited patent to the collapsible transparent ballot boxes are not in doubt, Chief Assam reminded President Jonathan that "by virtue of certificate of registration of patent dated January 12, 1998, the Honourable Minister of Commerce and Industry, on behalf of the President, Federal Republic of Nigeria, issued our client with the registration of patents rights No RP 12994 and the registration of industrial design rights No RD 5946 in and over transparent ballot boxes."

"Also, by virtue of a certificate of registration of patents right No RP 16642 and registration of industrial design rights No RD 13841 both dated November 27, 2006, our client was issued with the patent and design rights in and over transparent ballot boxes and its electronic version named electronic collapsible transparent ballot boxes (ECTBB)," he stated.

Chief Assam further told President Jonathan that the effect of the certificates and "by virtue of the combined effects of Section 42(1)(2) of the Public Procurement Act, 2007, and Section 6(1) of the Patent and Design Act, our client reserves the exclusive right to manufacture, import, sell, produce, use and otherwise deal with the said boxes to the exclusion of any other person whosoever, including but not limited to INEC, except with the prior and express consent, authorization, approval and license of our client to that effect."

[b]According to the letter, the patentee had, standing on its exclusive rights to the products, granted in 2003, license to INEC, to use its designs for which 500,000 units of ballot boxes were procured for the conduct of the 2003 general elections, wondering why the same commission that sought its rights in 2003 has now decided to infringe on it by approving Emchai Ltd as patent owner, instead of abiding by the patent laws.

It frowned at the "deceptive and misleading" fact presented before the FEC by INEC which recognised Emchai Limited as owner of patent for the collapsible transparent ballot boxes, adding that such an infringement is capable of drawing INEC into a controversy that could mar the conduct of the 2011 general elections.

It said: "Our clients were therefore palpably shocked to learn from the media on Thursday, November 25, 2010 that INEC had, using fraudulently and falsely contrived documents, successfully sought and obtained the ratification of the Federal Executive Council for the award of 150,000 units of the collapsible transparent ballot boxes (of our client) at a unit cost of N13,000.00 making total contract sum of N1.950 billion without the prior consent, license and authority of our client being the rightful and bona fide owners of the patent and copyright designs of the transparent ballot boxes and/or electronic collapsible transparent ballot boxes contrary to the clear provision of sections 6 (1)(2), 19 and 25 of the Patent and Design Act 2004."

Accusing INEC of deliberate infringement, Chief Assam said to President Jonathan: "Mr. President, please permit us to bring to your attention the fact that as at the presentation of this memorandum to the Federal Executive Council for the award of the said contract, INEC knew and was aware that the said fraudulent patent was the subject of various litigations in the Federal High Court," adding that "our client had since 2007 been in court seeking to nullify the fraudulently obtained patent, the basis for the contract approved by the FEC on grounds of various breaches of their patent and design rights."[/b]