ITW GSE APS Vs Dabico Airport Solutions

Interim Injunction in Patent Infringement Suit and Lack of Credible Challenge

Introduction:

The High Court of Delhi delivered a judgment on July 4, 2024, in the patent infringement case of ITW GSE APS & ANR. versus DABICO AIRPORT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ORS. The case, which was reserved for judgment on May 14, 2024, revolves around the alleged infringement of a registered patent (IN 330145, hereinafter referred to as the "suit patent") by the defendants. The plaintiffs, ITW GSE APS & ANR., claimed that the defendants' Pre-Conditioned Air (PCA) units infringed on their suit patent and sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from dealing with the impugned products. After evaluating the arguments of parties, injunction was granted against the defendant.

Background of the Case:

The suit patent pertains to a PCA unit that supplies preconditioned air to aircraft parked on the ground. The invention specifically discloses a compressor with a Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) in each of at least two refrigeration systems of a PCA unit, where each VFD is configured to vary the power of the respective compressor. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants' PCA units infringe on their patent by incorporating these specific technical features.

The plaintiffs supported their claims by highlighting that:

The suit patent had been nationalized in India through a PCT application and granted in major jurisdictions such as the EPO, USA, and Japan.The patent had also been granted in at least five other jurisdictions worldwide.

The plaintiffs had installed PCA units at several Indian airports, including Mumbai and Bengaluru.

The defendants countered by challenging the validity of the suit patent on multiple grounds:

Obviousness and Lack of Inventive Step:

They argued that the suit patent did not meet the criteria for an inventive step and was obvious.

Double Patenting:

The defendants claimed that the plaintiffs engaged in double patenting by filing two patent applications with similar specifications, thus dealing with the same invention.

Non-compliance with the Patents Act:

They asserted that the suit patent was not patentable under Sections 3(d) and 3(f) of the Patents Act, as it was a new use of a known apparatus or merely an arrangement of known devices functioning independently in a known way.

Court’s Analysis

Validity of the Suit Patent:

The court meticulously examined the validity of the suit patent, focusing on the prior art documents D2, D6, and D14, as presented by the defendants. The analysis revealed that the defendants failed to present a credible challenge to the validity of the suit patent. The court found that the defendants’ arguments on obviousness, lack of inventive step, and double patenting were not substantiated adequately.

Obviousness and Inventive Step:

The court noted that the defendants did not convincingly demonstrate that the suit patent lacked an inventive step or was obvious. The combination of the specific technical features disclosed in the suit patent (the VFD in the refrigeration systems) was not found in the prior art, thereby upholding the novelty and inventive step of the suit patent.

Double Patenting:

On the issue of double patenting, the court examined the specifications of the two patents mentioned by the defendants (IN ‘952 and the suit patent). The court concluded that the two patents, though similar in some respects, addressed different aspects of the technology and provided distinct solutions. Therefore, the allegation of double patenting did not hold.

Non-compliance with Sections 3(d) and 3(f):

The court dismissed the defendants’ claim that the suit patent was not patentable under Sections 3(d) and 3(f). The suit patent was not merely a new use of a known apparatus nor an arrangement of known devices functioning independently in a known way. Instead, it presented a novel and non-obvious technical solution.

Principles of Patent Infringement:

The court applied the principles of patent infringement, including the mapping of essential elements and the doctrine of equivalents. The analysis involved a detailed comparison of the suit patent's claims with the elements/claims of the defendants' PCA units. The court found that the defendants' PCA units did incorporate the essential features of the suit patent, thereby constituting infringement.

Judgment and Implications:

The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that there was no credible challenge to the suit patent’s validity based on the defendants' arguments. The interim injunction against the defendants was upheld, restraining them from using, manufacturing, or selling the infringing PCA units.

Author’s Note:

This case is a significant milestone in the realm of patent litigation, especially concerning interim injunctions and the scrutiny of patent validity. The High Court of Delhi's thorough examination of the suit patent's validity and the principles of infringement highlights the rigorous standards that must be met to challenge a patent effectively. ITW GSE APS & ANR. v. DABICO AIRPORT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ORS. case sets a precedent for handling complex patent infringement disputes, providing clarity on the judicial approach to patent validity challenges and the application of interim injunctions in patent litigation.

Case Citation: ITW GSE APS Vs Dabico Airport Solutions: 04.07.2024: CS(COMM) 628/2023: 2024:DHC:4978: Delhi High Court: Prathiba M Singh H.J.

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com

Mob No.:+91-9990389539