The plaintiff, a Japanese company and owner of Indian Patent IN244759 titled “Fiber Bundle Concentrating Apparatus in Spinning Machine,” alleged that the defendant’s spinning machine product “Spinpact” infringed its patented technology by using bottom nip rollers with grooves of depth greater than 0.04mm, matching the patented claims. The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant’s manufacture and sale of the allegedly infringing product.
Procedurally, the plaintiff filed an interim application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for injunction during the pendency of the suit. The defendant contested the application, raised counterclaims challenging the validity of the patent for lack of novelty and inventive step, and argued that the patent had already expired on May 24, 2025, which made the injunction futile.
The dispute centered on whether the plaintiff could secure an interim injunction to restrain the defendant’s alleged infringement despite the patent’s expiry, and whether the claimed invention involved sufficient inventive step over prior art.
In discussion, the Court noted that under Section 53 of the Patents Act, once a patent expires, its subject matter enters the public domain and cannot be protected further. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Novartis AG & Anr. v. Natco Pharma Limited, SLP(C) No.16237/2024, which held that post-expiry of a patent, it is unnecessary to adjudicate interim injunction applications on merits, as injunctions would become legally ineffective.
The Court dismissed the application for interim injunction, holding that after expiry of the patent, the plaintiff could not restrain others from using the patented technology, though the plaintiff remained entitled to prove past infringement during the patent’s subsistence and claim damages. The Court directed the defendant to file an affidavit disclosing details of products made before expiry, to assist in final adjudication.
