has attacked the subsistence of any copyright in Inox by stating that the drawings of both CEPL and Inox can be traced to a common European code which is an open-source and even otherwise, the drawings of CEPL have been developed in collaboration with one Mr. Ronald Baker, who is an independent consultant and who has stated that there is no patent in his drawings. Inox in this regard has claimed that Mr. Ronald Baker was its employee and the copyright in drawings made by its employee vests with it. It has been alleged that certain employees of Inox despite signing confidentiality clauses, joined the services of CEPL within a few days of resignation from Inox. The drawings were developed within a couple of months of their joining CEPL, and the drawings were thereafter approved by the regulatory authority, and soon, manufacture commenced of such LNG semi-trailer. Inox has contended that the aforementioned suit has been filed by it almost within one year of the manufacture of LNG semi-trailer by CEPL, whereas limitation for filing a suit for infringement of copyright is 3 years from the cause of action. Thus, the suit, though not filed at the earliest opportunity is still within limitation. It has been stated by Inox that it could, so far, not obtain an interim injunction from the civil court as its application for the said purpose has not been fully heard by the Learned Court yet. With regard to the various communications issued by Inox to customers/potential customers and regulatory authority, CEPL has vehemently contended that the tenor of the said communications, despite there being no injunction in its favour from the Learned Court, would indicate that it was done with an intention to prejudice the customers/potential customers of CEPL so that they stop dealing with CEPL and ultimately, CEPL is driven out from the market, and there exists no competition for Inox from CEPL, which was offering efficient products at much lower prices compared to Inox.
