The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has lost its preliminary objection to the N8 billion suit filed by Technocrat Consult and IT System Solution over alleged copyright infringement.
Joined as defendants are the Chartered Institute of Bankers of Nigeria (CIBN) and Ernst and Young Nigeria.
Justice Saliu Saidu of the Federal High Court, Lagos said he went through the statement of claim, the list of witnesses, written statement on oath, registration certificate sought to be put in evidence, and all other documents the plaintiff sought to rely on in the case, all bearing its supposed name.
“The plaintiff has described that the inclusion of the word ‘solution’ in the plaintiff’s name on the writ of summons is known to law. Therefore the court cannot be seen sacrificing substantial justice in the name of technicality,” Saidu ruled.
“The court must always stand up to what will be just in the circumstances of each case. With the accompanying statement of claim before the court, the plaintiff in this case is not in doubt if I have to consider the submission of the defendant to strike out this case; it will amount to delay and denied justice.
“What I believe is justice in the instant case, is to allow the plaintiff to do necessary amendment and treat typographic error as irregularity will not lead to injustice.”
Saidu said what happened was a typographical error which could be seen as a mere irregularity that could be amended without causing any injustice to the defendants.
He dismissed the preliminary objection of the CBN and allowed “the necessary correction as can be seen on the statement of claim and the accompanying exhibits by removing the word solution from the plaintiff’s name on the writ of summons.”
Technocrat Consult averred that
• It invented a device known as portable telecommunication (mobile clinic) used in biometric, finger print and photograph based identification system for individuals.
• Both the CBN and CIBN through the Bankers’ Committee (BC), issued a public request for expression of interest to participate in a biometric project, with the request being coordinated by Enrst and Young, on behalf of the BC, stating that it participated, was shortlisted and given the full request for proposal document.
• While submitting the response to the request, it attached a letter informing the BC that it owns a patent required for the completion of the project.
• It proposed to use its innovation, and having perceived the likelihood of not being considered for the project execution, it wrote to the BC disclosing that it has the patent covering the project and indicating willingness to meet any technical qualification required.
• However, to its surprise, the BC through an e-mail dated November 30, 2012, informed it that defendants no longer considered it for the project.
• In that particular case that the defendants needed the vendor to procure a machine to access the application through internet explorer 6.0/8.0 Mozilla fire fox where finger print devices are connected.
• The defendants were aware that the project, if not executed by it, would lead to a deliberate infringement on the invention contained in its registered patent number RP: NG/P/2010/283, contending that the BC had concluded its plan and was ready to award the over $100 million contract on January 7, 2013 to another vendor which would likely use the invention.
Among declarations sought by Technocrat Consult are that
• Its registered patent for mobile clinic device used in biometric identification is valid and subsisting as its original author, inventor, creator, and designer.
• The defendants’ proposed implementation of a biometric solution, application servers, database servers and finger print devices infringe on its registered patent device used in biometric identification.
Technocrat Consult is claiming N8 billion as damages and asked the court to restrain the defendants whether acting by themselves, agents, servants or privies whosoever from infringing on its registered patent device used in biometric identification, importing, manufacturing or distributing the biometric solution, application servers, database servers and finger print devices or any machine with the scope of its registered patent device used in biometric identification.
But the CBN in its preliminary objection dated February 18, 2013 contended that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit as proper parties are not before the court. It sought an order setting aside the motion on notice dated December 14, 2012 on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
It also sought an order striking out and/or dismissing the suit.
The case was adjourned until March 20 for hearing.