The Plaintiff sought an interdict restraining the Defendants from infringing its patent. The Defendants denied any infringement through the use of the Plaintiff's invention in their products or services and further claimed that the patent was invalid for lack of novelty and for being obvious. The Plaintiff, being unable to discharge the onus resting upon him, failed to prove infringement. Additionally, the court also found the Defendant's claim of the invalidity of the Plaintiff's patent due to lack of novelty and an inventive step as being established sufficiently.