Interlocutory Injunction Granted After Establishing Prima Facie Infringement of Tamper-Evident Container and Leak-Proof Spout Patents.

The Plaintiff, a manufacturer of injection-molded containers, holds two patents: IN 401417 (“Suit Patent I”) for a tamper-evident pail closure system and IN 298724 (“Suit Patent II”) for a tamper-proof lid with a spout.

In 2023, the Plaintiff discovered the Defendant selling identical "Impugned Goods" on IndiaMart.

The Trial Court initially granted an injunction, later vacated it, and the matter was eventually transferred to the High Court.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s CEO was their former distributor, implying bad faith and knowledge of the proprietary technology.

The Defendant challenged the validity of the patents based on prior art (D1 and a "Ceased Patent") and argued that their products did not infringe because of minor structural variations, such as a tear band opening on only three sides instead of four.

1. Whether Suit Patent I and Suit Patent II are valid and novel in light of the cited prior art (D1, Prior Patent, and Ceased Patent)

2. Whether the Defendant’s products infringe the claims of the Suit Patents under the doctrines of "Pith and Substance" or "Equivalence"

3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction pending the final disposal of the suit

The Court applied the Patents Act, 1970, specifically Sections 2(1)(j) and 2(1)(ja) regarding novelty and inventive step.

It relied on F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd. to establish that patent infringement is determined by comparing the patent claims with the impugned product, not through product-to-product comparison.

The Court followed the "Pith and Marrow" rule from Raj Parkash v. Mangat Ram Chowdhry, holding that minor workshop improvements do not allow a defendant to escape infringement if the essential features of the patent are taken.

It also considered the "Gillette Defence," which asserts that an impugned product cannot infringe if it simply follows what was disclosed in expired or prior art.

Regarding Suit Patent I, the Court found it novel because it features a unique secondary locking mechanism with lugs and spring-back hinges absent in prior art D1 (which uses a simple hinge system).

Despite the Defendant's claim that their lid only opens on three sides, the Court noted the presence of the inner/outer walls and "V-shaped" (effectively U-shaped) channel that maps to Claim 1.

For Suit Patent II, the Court rejected the Defendant’s reliance on the "Ceased Patent" (IN 207276), observing that Suit Patent II involves an integrated tamper-evident seal and a specific "tail ring" crimping process that yields a 100% leak-proof seal not enabled by the prior art.

The Court found the Defendant’s "Gillette Defence" unsuccessful because the Impugned Goods mirrored the specific structural advancements of the Plaintiff's patents rather than the generic features of the expired prior art.

The Court granted I.A. 43917/2024 and dismissed the Defendant’s I.A. 43923/2024. The Defendant and its affiliates are restrained from manufacturing, selling, or advertising any products that infringe Suit Patent I (IN 401417) or Suit Patent II (IN 298724) during the pendency of the suit.

The balance of convenience was found in favor of the Plaintiff, as the Defendant failed to "clear the way" by challenging the patents before launching its products.