SAN FRANCISCO, January 28, (THEWILL) – The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and its Chairman, Prof. Atahiru Jega, has been chided for awarding a whopping N34.5 billion worth of contracts in 2010 for the purchase of Direct Data Capturing (DDC) machines for voters’ registration.
The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, Justice Ibrahim Auta, who faulted INEC and Jega on Tuesday in a judgment, said the electoral body and Jega as well as three companies involved in the deal were guilty of copyright infringements on a valid and subsisting patent right owned by a firm – Bedding Holdings Limited (BHL).
The judge held that based on the evidence provided in the case, the plaintiff, BHL, is the real owner of a subsisting patent right over the process, application and the use of DDC machines for voters’ registration.
The judge therefore ordered INEC, Jega and others to pay BHL N17.25billion as compensation for infringing on its valid and subsisting patent right.
Recall that BHL, had in the suit filed by its lawyer, John Okoriko, alleged that INEC and Jega infringed on its patented right over “the process and application of DDC machines for the compilation and collection of various bio-data,” by awarding contracts for the purchase and deployment of the DDC machines for the compilation of the voters register without its consent.
Listed as defendants in the suit aside INEC and Jega, were the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and the companies to which INEC awarded the contracts – Haier Electrical Appliances Corporation Limited, Zinox Technologies Ltd and Avante International Technology.
Justice Auta upheld Okoriko’s argument and evidence to the effect that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the patent right over the process and that its right was infringed by the conduct of the defendants, except the AGF.
He ruled that although the AGF was not a party to the transaction, as the nation’s chief law officer and a relevant officer in the execution of orders made against the government or its agents, he was a necessary party.
Justice Auta further held that the nation’s Patent and Design Act precluded anybody from using a patented invention without the consent of the inventor.
He said Section 6 of the Act provided for the protection of a patent right and that it was the duty of the court to ensure such protection.
The judge also frowned on the decision by INEC and Jega to award the contracts without BHL’s consent, despite being aware that BHL had the patent right over the invention.
“INEC, like every other government agencies, has the responsibility of obeying the law of the land. INEC as an electoral body should realise that the business of election is important. It touches on the life of the nation.
“So, INEC should always play by the rule, so that its conduct does not affect the outcome of elections,” Justice Auta said.
He also held that from the preponderance of evidence before him, the plaintiff and its Chairman, Chief Sylvester Odigie, did not appear as people, who wished to reap where they did not sow, more so, when Odigie had been awarded national honours for productivity.
The judge observed that the country’s President, in 1997 awarded Odigie the Nigeria’s highest order of honour and dignity for productivity and order of merit for his remarkable contribution to national development as the most productive individual that year.
He declared that from the evidence before his court, BHL owned the patent right No: RP16642 and copyrights designs No: RD13841 over Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB) and Patent rights No: RP NG/P/2010/202 over Proof of Address System/Scheme (PASS) embedded with the coded metal plate and the process and application of these products to produce voters’ register.
The judge also declared that BHL was entitled to 50 per cent of the contract sum of N34,517,640,000 (which is N17,258,820,000 “being the minimum reasonable royalty accruable to the plaintiff ” for the unauthorised use of its invention.
The Judge ordered INEC and the other defendants to henceforth obtain the consent of the plaintiff before procuring and utilising the DDC machines for voters’ registration and related purposes.
