IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Enconcore N. V. – Appellant
Versus
Anjani Technoplast Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
CS(COMM) 382 of 2019 and CC(COMM) 27 of 2019, I.A. 10142 of 2019, 15072 of 2019, 15349 of 2019, 2077 of 2020, 4851 of 2023, 12810 of 2023
Decided On : 04-08-2023
Patent Infringement - Honeycomb Technology - Indian Patent Act, 1970, Section 64 - European Patent EP1824667, US Patent US 8,795,806, Russian Patent RU 2373057, Japanese Patent JP 4368399 - The court analyzed the Plaintiff's patented honeycomb core technology and the Defendants' manufacturing process, and balanced the interests of both parties by allowing the Defendants to manufacture and use honeycomb panels in products supplied to the Ministry of Defence under certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff, a Belgium-based company, sought a permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing its registered Indian Patent No. '260709' and infringement of copyright, damages, and other reliefs. The Defendants were engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of plastic products, including honeycomb panels. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants' products infringed its patent rights and conducted an investigation to confirm the infringement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court balanced the interests of both parties by allowing the Defendants to manufacture and use honeycomb panels in products supplied to the Ministry of Defence under certain conditions, considering the Plaintiff's willingness to license its technology and the Defendants' role as a supplier to the Ministry of Defence. The Court modified the injunction order to permit the Defendants to supply honeycomb panels to governmental bodies and directed the Defendants to deposit a sum with the Court for safeguarding the Plaintiff's interest.
Issues: The main issues included patent infringement, validity of the suit patent, and the balance of interests between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the Plaintiff's willingness to license its technology, the Defendants' role as a supplier to the Ministry of Defence, and the need to balance the interests of both parties. The Court also considered the non-user of the patent by the Plaintiff as a ground for refusing injunction, as established in previous case law.
Final Decision: The Court modified the injunction order to allow the Defendants to manufacture and use honeycomb panels in products supplied to the Ministry of Defence under certain conditions, and directed the Defendants to deposit a sum with the Court for safeguarding the Plaintiff's interest. The Court left all contentions of the parties open for further consideration.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
I.A. 10142/2019, 15072/2019, 15349/2019, 2077/2020, 4851/2023, 12810/2023
1. This hearing has been done by hybrid mode.
2. The Plaintiff-Enconcore N.V., a Belgium-based company, has filed the present suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants- Anjani Technoplast Ltd. and Mr. R.K Gupta from infringing its registered Indian Patent No. `260709' (hereinafter, `Plaintiff's patent' or `suit patent'), as also infringement of copyright, damages and other reliefs.
3. The case of the Plaintiff is that it is the global leader in the manufacture of honeycomb sandwich panels and parts, which are used across various industries segments and products. The Plaintiff claims that it has patented the technology in the production of thermoplastic honeycomb core materials and sandwich panels, which it supplies to various companies around the world. The Plaintiff also claims to have issued licenses for its patented technology to various companies that manufacture such panels. The Plaintiff has an annual turnover of over 6 million Euros. Additionally, Plaintiff also avers to have licensed the technology to Tata Group in the U.K., where Tata Steel is manufactured using the Plaintiff's patented polymer honeycomb production process.
4. The suit patent is titled "FOLDED HONEYCOMB AND PROCESS FOR PRODUCING THE SAME". It is submitted by the Plaintiff that the suit patent invention relates to folded honeycomb formed by a plastic deformation without using any cuts. The case of the Plaintiff is that the process of deformation of the thermoplastic firm by way of thermo-forming serves the purpose of formation of three-dimensional shapes i.e. cells of honeycomb in the folded end product. These cells in honeycomb structure are thus the structural and load bearing elements of the folded honeycomb structure. The said panel is identified by various features, including a central honeycomb core that is sandwiched on the sides with laminates. According to the Plaintiff, the said honeycomb panel is used in insulation, sound proofing and various other applications. Various steps have also been shown by the Plaintiff in the patent to show the manner in which it is manufactured. The advantages claimed by the Plaintiff in its honeycomb panel are set out in the patent and are pleaded in the Plaint, as under:
"12. The Plaintiffs patented honeycomb core technology (Therm-Hex technology) provides the following advantages:
"a. Fast and continuous in-line honeycomb core production and in-line panel lamination resulting in minimal costs of production of honeycomb core panels"
"b. Additional areas for a reliable core-skin bonding on both side of the honeycomb core, bridging every second cell";
"c. Excellent mechanical properties, structure similar to aerospace honeycombs resulting in minimal weight";
"d. Excellent rigidity, flexural strength and compression strength at minimal weight";
"e. Use of recyclable materials (thermoplastic polymers and natural fibres) leading to minimal environmental impact";
"f. Good thermal insulation properties"
Thus, in substance, the honeycomb core sandwich panels made using the patented technology have the following features:
5. The Plaintiff filed the suit patent as Patent Application No. 3054/DELNP/2007 as national phase entry of Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) International Application No. PCT/BE2005/000168 dated 21st November, 2005 claiming priority from European Application No. 04447255.3 dated 19th November, 2004. Indian filling date of the said application is 24th April, 2007. The term of the suit patent is valid till 20th November, 2025 owing to the international filing date 21st November, 2005. The suit patent was, thereafter, granted on 19th May, 2014. The bibliographic details of the suit patent are as follows:
| Parti | |
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Patents Act, 1970, to determine patent proprietorship, infringement, and entitlement to damages.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of patent infringement under the Patents Act and the calculation of damages based on the Plaintiff's losses.
The court reaffirmed the sanctity of patent rights, determining that allowing sale of infringing products would undermine ongoing legal protections against patent infringement.
Intellectual property Rights - Patent - Infringement of products - Existing stock shows that lot of production of impugned product took place also when pre-grant opposition filed by Association was d....
In patent infringement cases, plaintiffs must provide full disclosure and establish a prima facie case to obtain an injunction, which includes demonstrating the novelty of the patent.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.