Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Sterlite Technologies Limited - Appellant
Versus
HFCL Limited - Respondent
CS (COMM) 19 of 2022, I.A. 504 of 2022 & I.A. 1334 of 2022
Decided On : 14-09-2022
A patent cannot claim novelty when prior art demonstrates similar technologies, deteriorating its validity, particularly when specific features are not sufficiently distinctive.
Headnote:(A) Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 25 and 64 - Patent infringement - Plaintiff sought injunction against Defendant for infringement of Indian Patent No. IN335369, concerning optical fiber cables - The court found that the patent's claim of 16 fibers as a key element was insufficient to prove novelty as compared to prior art (RJIL OFC and Gigacom OFC) - Defendant's claims of non-infringement and patent invalidity supported by prior art were upheld - The ex parte injunction granted earlier was vacated based on prima facie weak standing of the Plaintiff's patent. (Paras 1-37)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff claimed its patent was infringed by the Defendant due to similarities in their optical fiber cables. The Defendant argued the suit patent lacked novelty and that its product with 12 fibers did not infringe the patent's claims of 16 fibers. The court examined prior art documents validating the Defendant's claims of non-infringement.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the Plaintiff's patent lacked the novel and inventive step required for validity, primarily due to the substantial similarities observed in the claimed features of the Defendant's products and those present in prior art.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the patent in light of prior art and the determination of infringement based on the specific claim of 16 optical fibers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that differences in patent claims must establish novelty, which the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate. The similarities to prior art were deemed substantial enough to undermine the patent's validity and the claim of infringement.
Result: The ex parte injunction was vacated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of suit and patent details (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on infringement and patent validity (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. analysis of evidence, injunctions, and claims (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. comparison of prior art and its implications (Para 16 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 5. assessment of novelty and inventive step (Para 28 , 30) |
| 6. conclusion on prima facie invalidity of patent (Para 35) |
| 7. final orders regarding injunction and terms (Para 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
BRIEF FACTS
1. The present is a suit filed by the Plaintiff- Sterlite Technologies Ltd. - seeking inter alia, an injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent No. IN335369 (hereinafter "IN'69/suit patent") which relates to optical fiber cables (hereinafter "OFCs"). The Plaintiff claims to be an industry leading integrator of digital networks providing integrated 5G ready end to end solutions ranging from wired to wireless, design to deployment connectivity to compute through core capabilities in Optical Interconnect, Virtualised Access Solutions, Network Software and System Integration. The Plaintiff company was established in the year 1988 as a copper cable manufacturing unit and thereafter in 1993 developed optical fiber manufacturing capabilities. The Plaintiff avers that it is engaged in the business of telecom products and solutions, including manufacture and sale of integrated optical fibers and OFCs and also provides cloud computing services. As per the plaint, the Plaintiff has manufacturing facilities in India, China, and Brazil, and software development centers in India and U.K. The Plaintiff's revenue as of the financial year 2020, is stated to be around Rs.41,420 million, with offices in 16 countries and 7 global production facilities. The detailed profile of the Plaintiff has been set out in the plaint.
2. The suit patent titled `OPTICAL FIBER CABLE FOR BLOWING INTO DUCT', has a priority date of 29th March, 2016 and was granted on 20th March, 2020 with the following Claims:
"1. An optical fiber cable (100) comprising:
one or more sleeve stranded around a central strength member (102), wherein each of the one or more sleeve encloses 16 optical fibers, wherein each of the optical fibers has a diameter of about 250 microns; a layer (108) surrounding the one or more sleeve, wherein the one or more sleeve comprises one or more optical fiber, wherein the layer (108) is one or more strengthening layer acting as a binding element for the one or more optical fiber; and an outer sheath enclosing the layer (108), wherein the optical fiber cable (100) has a nominal weight in a range of 2 kg/km and 250 kg/km and a nominal diameter in a range of 1.5 mm and 20 mm.
2. The optical fiber cable (100) as claimed in claim 1, comprising one or more central strength member (102) lying substantially along a longitudinal axis of the optical fiber cable (100), wherein the one or more central strength member (102) has a diameter in a range of 0.5 mm to 6mm.
3. The optical fiber cable (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the layer (108) is a binder yarn, and yarn thread, and wherein the layer (108) is made of polyester, aramid, polypropylene and a water blocking material, wherein said layer (108) facilitates absorption of water and moisture in the optical fiber cable (100).
4. The optical fiber cable (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein a tensile strength of the optical fiber cable (100) in a range of 10 N to 2000N.
5. The optical fiber cable (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein a number of fibers in the optical fiber cable (100) is up to 288.
6. The optical fiber cable (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the outer sheath is made of polyamides, polyethylene, polypropylene and Nylon, Low smoke zero halogen (LSZH) and Fire-Resistant Polyethylene (FRPE).
7. The optical fiber cable (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more optical fibers and the one or more sleeves are colored.
8. The optical fiber cable (100) as claimed in claim
 |  |  | |
