Amitoje India Pvt. Ltd. and Ravinder Kaur, engaged in manufacturing display units, sued Classic Display Systems Pvt. Ltd. for infringing their patent IN 533643 titled "A Foldable Product Display Unit" granted in April 2024 after a pre-grant opposition by the defendant was rejected, seeking permanent injunction against the defendant's similar foldable displays sold since at least 2022. The suit included an interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, while the defendant filed a counterclaim challenging the patent's validity on grounds of obviousness and prior use, relying on US Patent Publication 20100051568A1 as prior art not cited earlier. Procedurally, the court allowed reliance on this prior art for the interim hearing after initial disputes and recalls, noting no presumption of patent validity. Reasoning that the suit patent's key feature of side panels folding sideways in the same direction was a mere workshop improvement obvious to a person skilled in the art from the prior art, which did not teach away, the court found the defendant raised a credible challenge to validity under Section 64(1)(f) of the Patents Act, thus no prima facie case for injunction existed, balance of convenience favored the long-operating defendant, and any harm to plaintiffs could be compensated monetarily. The interim application was dismissed, with directions for the defendant to file quarterly sales affidavits.
- There is no presumption of validity of a patent even after grant by the Controller, and its validity can be challenged in court proceedings: Amitoje India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Classic Display Systems Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 765/2024, Para 25 (citing Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries, (1979) 2 SCC 511).
- For grant of interim injunction in patent infringement suits, if the defendant raises a credible challenge to the patent's validity (a serious question to be tried, not actual invalidity), no injunction should be granted: Amitoje India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Classic Display Systems Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 765/2024, Para 27 (citing TEN XC Wireless Inc. & Anr. v. Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4648).
- To determine obviousness/lack of inventive step, courts must follow sequential steps: identify the person skilled in the art, inventive concept, common general knowledge, differences from prior art, and whether differences are obvious without hindsight: Amitoje India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Classic Display Systems Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 765/2024, Para 21.4.1 (citing F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1870).
- A prior art "teaches away" only if it discourages or diverts the person skilled in the art from the claimed path, not merely by suggesting an alternative without negation: Amitoje India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Classic Display Systems Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 765/2024, Para 84 (citing Sulphur Mills Limited v. Dharamaj Crop Guard Limited and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3874).
- Minor alterations like changing the folding direction of components in a display unit constitute mere workshop improvements obvious to a skilled craftsman and lack inventive step: Amitoje India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Classic Display Systems Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 765/2024, Para 82.
Case Title: Amitoje India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Classic Display Systems Pvt. Ltd. Order date: 24th December, 2025 Case Number: CS(COMM) 765/2024 & I.A. 38674/2024 Neutral Citation: N/A Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Name of Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna
[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]
