Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

1. The appellant (plaintiff in the suit) is aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.2014 whereby the applications being IA No. 20605 of 2013 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure) (for short “CPC”) and IA No. 1276 of 2014 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC) have been disposed of and the interim injunction dated 19.12.2013 has been vacated.

2. The appellants have filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from infringing the patent of the appellant No.1 and further consequential relief of rendition of accounts and a decree for damages.

3. The appellant No.1 claims to be a pioneer in personal protection equipment and is engaged in designing and manufacturing respiratory devices since 1972. The subject patent i.e. Indian Patent No. 211175 for invention titled “Flat Fold Personal Respiratory Protection Devices and process for preparing the same” was granted in favour of the appellants w.e.f. 26.05.1999. The appellants claim to be manufacturing the product, claimed in the subject patent, since 2002.

4. The Indian Patent claim is based on PCT International Application filed in United States on 26.05.1999. It is contended that on 28.02.2002, the US Priority Application was granted and is identified as US Patent No.6,394,090.

5. As per the claims in the subject patent, the mask for which the patent application has been filed, is intended to serve the following purposes/needs:-

(i) Flat folded yet providing a good respiratory seal;

(ii) Uncomplicated design that is easy and inexpensive to manufacture;

(iii) Contact wearer's face at periphery of face mask with minimum facial contact such that comfort to wearer is maximum and engagement with perimeter of face mask to the face of the wearer is minimal.

6. For achieving the purposes/needs, it is claimed that the mask has following essential features:-

(i) A non-pleated main body divided into three portions;

(ii) Two lines of demarcation separating the mask into three portions;

(iii) A bisecting fold extending vertically across the main body;

(iv) Lines of demarcation that do not include and are not part of a pleat;

(v) Mask is made from a monolithic preform blank of material, thereby making manufacturing process easier.

7. It is claimed that the advantages (technical advancement) accomplished by the mask of the subject patent are:-

(i) lines of demarcation have a joint-like function - imparts relative movement between three portions of the mask and imparts structural integrity to the mask while improving flexibility and conformance of the mask to the face.

(ii) lines of demarcation form two axes of rotation - the lines of demarcation forms an axis of rotation for first and second portion and also for second and third portions to rotate at least partially around such lines of demarcation.

(iii) lines of demarcation prevent delamination of multi-layers so that inner layer does not collapse during use

(iv) Off-the-face benefits to the user - ……………………………...........................

8. The appellants filed the subject Suit contending that the respondents have recently started manufacturing a device identical to the device covered by the subject patent. Comparing the infringing device model V4410 of the respondents, the appellants contend that the said infringing device has been manufactured analyzing the subject patent and each of the elements of Claim 1 of the subject patent are present in the respondents infringing device. The element- wise analysis of the respondents device vis-à-vis the claims of the subject patent, as contended by the appellant, are as under:-

“A flat folded personal respiratory protection device comprising; a non-pleated main body (Element 1) comprising: a first portion (Element 2); a second portion (Element 3) distinguished from the first portion by a first line of demarcation (Element 4);

A third portion (Element 5) distinguished from the second portion by a second line of demarcation (Element 6); and a bisecting fold (Element 7)