The **Delhi High Court**, in a detailed Division Bench judgment delivered by Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla on 28 January 2026, addressed cross-appeals arising from an interim injunction order in a patent infringement suit concerning tamper-evident and leak-proof packaging systems for containers, particularly pails and food-grade lids. The Court upheld the injunction against Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. for alleged infringement of Mold-Tek Packaging Limited's patent IN 401417 while setting aside the vacation of injunction for patent IN 298724, thereby restoring interim protection for both patents pending trial. This ruling emphasizes the high threshold for defendants to credibly challenge patent validity at the interim stage and reinforces the application of infringement tests like pith-and-marrow and doctrine of equivalents in prima facie assessments.
**Introduction**
This decision from the Delhi High Court in cross-appeals under FAO(COMM) 235/2025 and 241/2025 clarifies the evidentiary burden on defendants seeking to defend patent infringement suits by raising invalidity grounds under Sections 64 and 107 of the Patents Act, 1970, at the interim injunction stage under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd., holder of two granted Indian patents for innovative tamper-evident closure systems used in plastic pails and containers for food and industrial storage, alleged infringement by Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s competing products. The Commercial Court had partially confirmed and partially vacated the initial ad-interim injunction, prompting appeals from both sides. The Division Bench meticulously examined infringement mappings, prior art challenges, and equitable considerations, ultimately tilting the balance in favor of preserving status quo through injunctions for both patents while remanding certain validity aspects for deeper trial scrutiny. The judgment underscores that registered patents enjoy a presumption of validity, and defendants must discharge a substantial prima facie burden to rebut infringement or establish invalidity to defeat interim relief, particularly when claim charts and technical comparisons reveal substantial embodiment of essential inventive features.
**Factual Background**
Mold-Tek Packaging Limited holds Indian Patent No. IN 401417 titled “Tamper-Evident Leak Proof Pail Closure System” and Indian Patent No. IN 298724 titled “A Tamper Proof Lid Having Spout for Containers and Process for Its Manufacture”, both granted and subsisting. These patents cover specialized plastic closure systems featuring tamper-evident bands, peel-off rings, gaskets, and integrated spouts designed to ensure leak-proof sealing, tamper detection, and ease of use in pails and containers for food, chemicals, and other goods. Mold-Tek alleged that Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. was manufacturing, selling, and offering products that directly embodied the essential features of these patented inventions without license, thereby infringing Mold-Tek's exclusive rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970. Neway denied infringement, asserting that its products differed in construction and functionality, and further contended that both patents were invalid on grounds of lack of novelty, obviousness, and anticipation by prior art (including foreign patents and an Indian application IN 288127), availing defenses under Section 107.
**Procedural Background**
Mold-Tek instituted Commercial Suit CS(Comm) 01/2024 before the District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, seeking permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs for patent infringement. Accompanying the suit was an interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. On 8 January 2024, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted restraining Neway from infringing both patents. Neway applied under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the injunction. After hearing both sides, the learned Commercial Court, by impugned order dated 20 August 2025, confirmed the injunction qua IN 401417 (finding prima facie infringement and insufficient credible invalidity challenge) but vacated it qua IN 298724 (on grounds of arguable invalidity or non-infringement). Aggrieved, Neway appealed against the confirmation for IN 401417 (FAO(COMM) 235/2025), while Mold-Tek appealed against the vacation for IN 298724 (FAO(COMM) 241/2025), along with connected miscellaneous applications.
**Reasoning and Decision of Court**
The Division Bench, after hearing senior counsel for both parties at length, dealt with each patent separately while applying the tripartite test for interim injunctions (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury). For IN 401417, the Court upheld the Commercial Court's finding of prima facie infringement, noting that Neway's product embodied every essential integer of the claimed dual-lock tamper-evident closure system, including the anti-clockwise peel-off ring and gasket arrangement, satisfying the pith-and-marrow doctrine and doctrine of equivalents. On invalidity, the Bench held that Neway failed to discharge its burden under Sections 64/107 by not providing any claim-to-claim comparative analysis or mapping with cited prior art (such as IN 288127 or US patents); mere general references to foreign patents without technical dissection were insufficient to create a credible challenge at the interim stage. The presumption of validity attached to granted patents prevailed, and the defendant's unsubstantiated assertions did not tilt the balance against injunction. For IN 298724, the Court found the Commercial Court's vacation erroneous, as Mold-Tek had made out a prima facie case of infringement through detailed claim charts showing substantial embodiment of the tamper-proof lid with integrated spout features. The Bench criticized the lower court's reliance on arguable prior art without requiring the defendant to prima facie substantiate invalidity through cogent evidence. Overall, setting aside the impugned order to the extent it vacated relief for IN 298724, the High Court restored interim injunctions for both patents pending suit disposal, remanded the invalidity issues for fresh detailed consideration at trial, and directed expeditious trial. The appeals were disposed accordingly, with costs.
**Point of Law Settled in the Case**
In patent infringement suits, while defendants may raise invalidity grounds under Section 64 as a defense per Section 107 at any stage including interim injunction proceedings, the burden lies heavily on the defendant to prima facie demonstrate credible invalidity through detailed comparative claim analysis, mapping, and technical evidence vis-à-vis cited prior art; mere general allegations, references to foreign patents without dissection, or lack of claim-to-claim charting are insufficient to rebut the presumption of validity of granted patents or defeat interim injunction where prima facie infringement is otherwise established under Section 48. At the interim stage, courts must apply infringement tests such as pith-and-marrow and doctrine of equivalents by comparing essential claim features with the defendant's product, and equitable relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC favors preserving status quo through injunction when balance of convenience and irreparable injury (dilution of patent monopoly, market share loss) tilt towards the patentee.
**Case Detail**
- **Title**: Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Mold-Tek Packaging Limited & Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd. v. Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd.
- **Date of Order**: 28 January 2026
- **Case Number**: FAO(COMM) 235/2025 & FAO(COMM) 241/2025 (along with connected CM Applications)
- **Neutral Citation**: 2026:DHC:702-DB (as per available metadata)
- **Name of Court**: High Court of Delhi
- **Name of Hon'ble Judges**: Justice C. Hari Shankar & Justice Om Prakash Shukla
**Disclaimer**: 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
**Suggested Titles for this Article**
- Delhi High Court Restores Interim Injunctions in Mold-Tek v. Neway Patent Dispute: Burden on Defendant to Prove Invalidity at Prima Facie Stage
- Tamper-Evident Packaging Patents: Delhi HC Upholds Injunction for IN 401417, Revives for IN 298724 in Neway Industries Appeal
- Patent Interim Relief: Delhi High Court Clarifies High Threshold for Invalidity Challenge in Infringement Suits
- Mold-Tek Prevails in Cross-Appeals – Delhi HC Reinforces Presumption of Patent Validity at Interim Stage
**Suggested Tags**
#PatentInfringement #InterimInjunction #DelhiHighCourt #TamperEvidentClosure #MoldTek #NewayIndustries #PatentsAct1970 #Section48 #Section107 #Section64 #PithAndMarrow #DoctrineOfEquivalents #IPR #IntellectualProperty #CommercialCourt #IPLitigation
**Headnote**
Delhi High Court Division Bench upholds interim injunction against Neway Industries for infringement of Mold-Tek's patent IN 401417 (Tamper-Evident Leak Proof Pail Closure System) and sets aside vacation of injunction for IN 298724 (Tamper Proof Lid with Spout), holding prima facie infringement established under Section 48 Patents Act via pith-and-marrow/equivalents tests; defendant failed to discharge burden under Sections 64/107 to credibly challenge validity through detailed prior art mapping at interim stage, preserving patentee's monopoly pending trial with invalidity issues remanded for fresh consideration.
====
**Very brief and compact summary**
Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd holds Indian patents IN 401417 (tamper-evident leak-proof pail closure system) and IN 298724 (tamper-proof lid with spout for containers). It filed a commercial suit (CS Comm 01/2024) alleging that Neway Industries Pvt Ltd was infringing both patents by manufacturing and selling similar products. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted on 08.01.2024. Neway applied under Order XXXIX Rule 4 for vacation. The Commercial Court, vide impugned order dated 20.08.2025, confirmed the injunction qua IN 401417 finding prima facie infringement and no credible invalidity challenge, but vacated the injunction qua IN 298724 holding the patent prima facie generic, lacking novelty and inventive step due to prior patent IN 207276 and market products. Both parties filed FAO appeals. The Division Bench upheld the injunction in respect of IN 401417 (dismissing Neway’s appeal FAO 235/2025) as Neway failed to provide product-to-claim mapping or credible prior art comparison (especially vis-à-vis IN 288127) and failed to discharge onus on invalidity. For IN 298724, the Bench upheld the finding of prima facie infringement but set aside the invalidity findings for lack of proper claim comparison with cited prior art, remanded the validity issue afresh to the Commercial Court, revived the original ex-parte injunction of 08.01.2024 till fresh decision, and directed both parties to appear on 17.02.2026 for expeditious hearing.
**Crisp bullet points of law settled**
- In patent infringement proceedings, when invalidity is raised as a defence under Section 107 read with Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, the onus to make out a credible prima facie challenge to validity lies on the defendant once the plaintiff establishes prima facie infringement. (Para 19)
- Product-to-claim mapping is an indispensable element in a patent infringement suit (except where impossible); absence of such mapping seriously undermines the case that the defendant’s product is “that product” covered by the granted claim. (Para 13.9–13.10, relying on Zydus Lifesciences Ltd v E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC, MANU/DE/0186/2026)
- Arguments not pressed or not captured in written submissions before the trial court (even if pleaded) are ordinarily not permitted to be raised for the first time in appeal. (Para 13.5)
- Finding of lack of novelty / obviousness / generic nature cannot negate the existence of infringement; infringement and validity are separate inquiries and must not be conflated. (Para 18.2–18.3)
- When an appellate court sets aside an order that had vacated an earlier ex-parte ad-interim injunction, the earlier ad-interim injunction revives ipso facto; the principle of merger does not prevent such revival. (Para 21–24)
**Case Title, Order date, Case Number, Neutral Citation, Name of court and Name of Judges**
Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mold-Tek Packaging Limited & Connected Matter
Order dated: 28 January 2026
Case Numbers: FAO (COMM) 235/2025 & FAO (COMM) 241/2025 (with connected CM Appls.)
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:702-DB
Court: High Court of Delhi
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Disclaimer: 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
#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor
No comments:
Post a Comment