The Federal High Court in Lagos has called on all parties involved in a N98.5 billion patent infringement lawsuit to make genuine efforts to settle the matter out of court. The suit involves the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System (NIBSS), Enterprise Logistics Special Limited, and Avanage Nigeria Limited. Justice Deinde Dipeolu issued the directive on Tuesday after declining to proceed with the trial due to the absence of legal representation for the CBN, Avanage Nigeria Limited, and the Registrar of Patents and Designs.
Plaintiffs Seek Damages for Alleged Patent Infringement
The plaintiffs, Enterprise Logistics Speciale Limited and its Managing Director, Samuel Kolajo, are claiming approximately N98.5 billion in damages. They allege that their patented cash management technology was infringed upon, a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) was breached, and they suffered losses because their cash management solution was not deployed on Nigeria’s national payment infrastructure. Tayo Oyetibo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), represented the plaintiffs alongside Jessica Adeola-Ajayi and Esther Bawa. Olaoluwa Ale-Daniel appeared for NIBSS, while no lawyers were present for the CBN, Avanage Nigeria Limited, or the Registrar of Patents and Designs.
Court Orders Service of Hearing Notices
Mr. Oyetibo informed the court that the matter was scheduled for trial and that the plaintiffs’ witness was ready to testify. However, Justice Dipeolu ruled that hearing notices must first be issued and served on the absent defendants before the case can proceed. He ordered that the notices be served ahead of the next sitting. The judge also reminded the lawyers of the Federal High Court Act, which encourages courts to facilitate amicable dispute resolution, and urged the parties to explore that option in good faith.
NIBSS Argues Regulatory Constraints
In response, the lawyer for NIBSS argued that the payment system operator operates under the regulatory oversight of the CBN and lacks the authority to make unilateral decisions regarding access to its infrastructure. He maintained that NIBSS cannot support any arrangement that would create a monopoly, describing that as the central issue in dispute. Conversely, Mr. Oyetibo argued that the plaintiffs had invested substantial resources in developing technologies protected by valid patents and are entitled to exclusive enjoyment of those inventions under the law. He stated that the innovations, if deployed, would significantly improve Nigeria’s cash management system and contribute to the country’s economy. According to the senior advocate, the major obstacle to resolving the dispute is the “selfish interests” of certain individuals in positions of authority, adding that Nigeria had been deprived of the economic benefits of the plaintiffs’ innovations. He nonetheless told the court that the plaintiffs remain open to settlement.
Court Adjourns for Possible Settlement or Trial
Following submissions from both sides, Justice Dipeolu directed the parties to engage in meaningful discussions and make genuine efforts to resolve the dispute out of court. The case was adjourned until 15 and 16 October for trial if settlement negotiations fail. The dispute centers on the CBN’s Bank Neutral Cash Hubs (BNCH) framework, introduced to improve cash distribution by allowing licensed operators to receive, process, store, and redistribute cash on behalf of banks. The plaintiffs contend that the framework substantially reproduces technologies covered by their patents without their consent, a claim disputed by the defendants. NIBSS, which operates much of Nigeria’s shared payment infrastructure, including the Nigeria Central Switch, has consistently maintained that access to its infrastructure is subject to regulatory oversight and internal approval and cannot be granted on an exclusive basis.
Claims Before the Court
According to the plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim, they began developing innovative cash management technologies in 2011 to modernize Nigeria’s cash handling system and reduce the movement of physical cash within the banking sector. The technologies include the Mobile Smart Deposit, Mobile Cash Sorting and Processing Device, PillarSalt Cash Supply Chain, Cash Recycling and Retail Cash Management Solution, and the PillarSalt Cash and Terminal Management System. The plaintiffs state that the inventions are protected by three patent certificates issued under the Patents and Designs Act. They allege that after sharing details of the innovations with the defendants, the CBN introduced the Guidelines for the Registration and Operation of Bank Neutral Cash Hubs, which substantially replicate the processes and technologies covered by their patents without their consent or compensation. The plaintiffs further allege that the apex bank commercialized their patented inventions and failed, in its capacity as regulator, to protect their intellectual property rights.
Reliefs Sought
Among the reliefs sought, the plaintiffs are asking the court to declare them the exclusive owners of the patented technologies and restrain the defendants from making, deploying, reproducing, or commercially using the inventions without their written consent. They are also seeking an order compelling NIBSS to activate the PillarSalt Cash Management Solution/Terminal Management System on the Nigeria Central Switch within 30 days. Additionally, the plaintiffs want the court to nullify the CBN’s Guidelines for the Registration and Operation of Bank Neutral Cash Hubs, arguing that the framework unlawfully reproduces their patented inventions. Their monetary claims include N500 million in general damages for the alleged patent infringement against the first and second defendants, N200 million against NIBSS for the alleged breach of the 2015 Non-Disclosure Agreement, and N97.8 billion for losses allegedly arising from NIBSS’s refusal to integrate and activate the PillarSalt solution on the Nigeria Central Switch since December 2016.
NIBSS’ Defence
In its amended statement of defence, NIBSS denied all allegations of wrongdoing. The payment system operator maintained that it neither infringed the plaintiffs’ patents nor breached the Non-Disclosure Agreement. It also denied refusing to integrate the plaintiffs’ solution. Instead, NIBSS argued that the plaintiffs were seeking exclusive rights that would prevent other operators with similar technologies from accessing the national payment infrastructure. According to NIBSS, granting such relief would amount to an unlawful restraint of trade, create a monopoly, and run contrary to applicable regulatory guidelines. The organization further maintained that decisions on integrating solutions into its infrastructure are subject to regulatory oversight and corporate approval and cannot be taken unilaterally.
