IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, DEVAN M. DESAI, JJ.
Sonani Industries Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Sonani Jewels Pvt. Ltd.) – Appellant
Versus
Galactica Processing Technologies Llp & Ors. - Respondents
R/Appeal From Order No. 139 Of 2023 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 Of 2023 With Civil Application (For Production Of Additional Evidences) No. 1 Of 2024
Decided On : 19-07-2024
Patent - Injunction - Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 25, 64 - The court analyzed the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury in patent infringement claims, emphasizing the necessity of full disclosure and the credibility of the patent's novelty.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing on their patent related to diamond holding devices used in HPHT treatment, claiming misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential information by former employees who started a competing business.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the injunction, as the defendants raised credible challenges regarding the validity and novelty of the suit patent, and the plaintiff had not disclosed all relevant information.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case for an injunction against the defendants for patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in patent infringement cases, the plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential for irreparable harm, which the plaintiff failed to do in this instance.
Result: The appeal is dismissed, and the injunction application is rejected.
JUDGMENT :
(Devan M. Desai, J.) :
1. By way of the present Appeal From Order, the appellant – original plaintiff has challenged the order below Ex.5 dated 18.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-11, District & Sessions Court, Surat in Commercial TM C.S.No.1 of 2023.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Saurabh Soparkar with learned advocate Mr.Tarun Khurana, learned advocate Mr.Ahhijeet Deshmukh and learned advocate Mr.Jwalit Soneji for the appellant, learned advocate Mr.Arjun M. Joshi for respondent Nos.1, 6 and 7 and learned Senior Counsel Mr.Jay Savla with learned advocate Mr.Robin Chacko and learned advocate Mr.Bhash Mankad for respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5.
3. Brief facts of the case are summarized as under:-
3.1 The plaintiff has prayed for in Injunction Application that pass an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, their affiliates, subsidiaries, related parties/officers, directors, representatives, agents distributors, assigns, nominees, and customers restraining them from directly or indirectly, jointly or severally, manufacturing having manufactured, procuring selling, offering for sale any machine/device or service that infringes the Suit Patent as well as any future machine/devices that incorporates the Suit Patent No.IN398302, so as to result in the infringement of the said Suit Patent, and has also prayed for ex-parte Adinterim and interim reliefs in terms of aforesaid prayers.
3.2 The Plaintiff is a supplier of CVD-grown diamonds. The Plaintiff also manufactures and supplies microwave reactors for CVD diamond production. The Plaintiff offers diamonds and jewellery, which are all lab- grown and is a global distributor of all types of fancycoloured diamonds and jewellery. The plaintiff has developed devices for High Pressure High Temperature treatment ("HPHT treatment") of diamonds and for this, the plaintiff has invented DIAMOND HOLDING DEVICES FOR HPHT TREATMENT OF DIAMONDS (Diamonds Holding Devices).
3.3 Plaintiff was granted First Patent (Patent No. IN328437) on 07.09.2020. The Diamond Container is a device, which holds the diamonds during HPHT Treatment. During HPHT Treatment, diamonds are exposed to extreme pressure @ 5 GPa-11 GPa and Temperature @ 1100'C- 3500'C. To derive optimum results out of HPHT Treatment it is cardinal to maintain accurate pressure and temperature over the diamonds, and in achieving such accuracy the structure of the diamond container plays cardinal importance. Plaintiff configured a unique structure of Diamond Container which can withstand extreme pressure and temperature during the treatment with a minimum level of damage to the diamonds. The modern state-of-art not only requires uniformity in application of accurate temperature and pressure during HPHT Treatments but to make the venture commercially viable and exploitable, a diamond container requires such structuring that can hold a maximum number of diamonds, so that the maximum number of diamonds can be processed at the same time, resulting into cost efficiency and uniformity in colour profile of the diamonds. During HPHT treatment, pressure @ 5GPa-11GPa and temperature @ 1200C-3500C are applied to diamonds. The diamonds are placed in a graphite chamber, which is supported by a cylindrical member, a heating ring, an insulating ring, a conductive plate, and an outer body. This entire structuring is basically what is called a Diamond Container. This diamond container is mounted between two faces of a die, which in turn is mounted between anvils of high-pressure apparatus and thereby, high pressure and high temperature are applied. The structure of the diamond container must enable transmission of pressure and temperature inside the graphite chamber and must also prevent it from being released. The suit patent not only increases the volume of cells to accommodate a large number of diamonds for HPHT Treatment, but at that time, the temperature and pressure transacted to the diamond
Bishwanath Prasad Radheshyam Vs Hindustan Metal Industries
Dr.Aloys Wobben v Yogesh Mehra reported in (2014) 15 SCC 360
Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Coca-Cola Company & Ors. reported in AIR 1995 SC 2372
Hindusthan Lever Ltd. V. Godrej Soaps Ltd. and Ors. reported in AIR 1996 Cal 367
Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Cipla Ltd. reported in (2009)40 PTC 125 (DB)
Novartis AG and Another Vs. Natco harma Limited
Novartis AG Vs. Union Of India and Others reported in (2013) 6 SCC 1
Ram Narain Kher Vs. M/s. Ambassador Industries New Delhi & Ors. reported in AIR 1976 Del 87
Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. Vs. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd. reported in (2023) 1 SCC 634
SJS Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 166
Skyline Education Institute (Pvt) Ltd Vs S.L. Vaswani and Ors reported in 2010 (2) SCC 142
Standipack Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Oswal Trading Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in AIR 2000 Del 23
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.
Interim injunctions in patent cases require a prima facie case; valid disclosure of patents must be clear, and a patentee cannot claim multiple patents for the same invention without significant diff....
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....
Mere possession of a patent does not shield a party from claims of infringement of another patent by demonstrating substantial similarity.
The court reaffirmed the sanctity of patent rights, determining that allowing sale of infringing products would undermine ongoing legal protections against patent infringement.
Infringement of trade mark and passing off - Permanent injunction - Appellants/defendants are bound down to their statement, till disposal of suit before Commercial Court. Readiness with which appell....
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.