SNPC Machines Private Limited, holding four patents for innovative mobile brick-making machines that automate the process by eliminating manual labor through a mechanism where the machine moves on the ground, fills dies on a roller with raw material from a hopper, molds bricks, and lays them automatically, filed a suit for permanent injunction against Vishal Chaudhary for infringing these patents by manufacturing and selling similar machines under the name 'Padma'.
Along with the suit, SNPC sought temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, which the Single Judge granted on 05.03.2024, restraining Chaudhary from using, making, or selling the machines.
Chaudhary appealed, arguing lack of territorial jurisdiction in Delhi High Court (as his operations are in Haridwar and the alleged sale was a trap), significant differences in design (e.g., his machine requires attachment to a tractor for mobility via kinetic energy, lacks a cabin and steered wheels, and needs manual control), improper application of pith and marrow doctrine instead of all elements rule, failure to apply doctrine of equivalents' FWR test, and imbalance in prima facie case, convenience, and irreparable harm.
The Division Bench rejected the jurisdiction challenge, holding that an offer for sale in Delhi suffices for injunction suits, even if not fructified.
On merits, it reasoned that the pith and marrow of SNPC's invention is the mobility-integrated assembly for automated brick-making without manual handling, and Chaudhary's variations (e.g., using a tractor instead of integrated cabin/motor) are non-essential, amounting to infringement under pith and marrow, though it deferred detailed analysis of doctrines like all elements rule or equivalents to trial to avoid prejudicing the suit.
It found the Single Judge's view reasonable and not perverse, with balance of convenience favoring SNPC to protect patent rights and goodwill, as Chaudhary's losses could be compensated monetarily if the suit fails. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the injunction.
Law Point:
- For maintaining a suit for injunction in patent infringement cases, an offer for sale or quotation within the court's territorial jurisdiction, even if not resulting in an actual transaction, is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, as injunction is prohibitive relief not requiring a concluded sale: Para 47-49.
- The essence or pith and marrow of a patented invention (here, mobility in brick-making machines to automate processes and reduce labor) must be assessed for infringement; non-essential variations like replacing integrated mobility (cabin, steered wheels, motor) with attachment to a tractor do not avoid infringement: Para 37-41, 54-57.
- Third-party infringements are irrelevant in determining a defendant's liability in patent disputes: Vishal Choudhary vs. SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors., FAO(OS) (COMM) 64/2024, Para 39.
Case Title: Vishal Choudhary Vs. SNPC Machines Private Limited:16.01.2025:FAO(OS) (COMM) 64/2024: 2026:DHC:399-DB:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Mehta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
No comments:
Post a Comment