$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 4^th November, 2024 + CS(COMM) 1683/2016 with CC(COMM) 38/2018 and I.A.13689/2017 and 7308/2024 UNILIN BEHEER B.V. .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Mr. Essenese Obhan, Ms. Ayesha Guhathakurta, Mr. Naveen Nagarjuna, Mr. Ritik Raghuwanshi, Mr. Rishubh Agarwal and Ms. Urvashi Singh, Advocates versus BALAJI ACTION BUILDWELL .....Defendant Through: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanuj Das, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

I.A. 13688/2017

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) Allow the confidential documents of the Plaintiff to be filed a seal cover;

(ii) Set up a confidentiality club with respect to the documents being filed in a sealed cover as per the guidelines/procure laid down in paragraph 4 above”

2. Notice was issued in this application vide order dated 21^st November, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 1683/2016 Page 1 of 7

2017.

3. Reply has been filed on behalf of the defendant on 21^st December, 2017 opposing the present application.

PREFATORY FACTS

4. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the registered patent of the plaintiff along with other ancillary reliefs.

5. The Plaintiff, Unilin Beheer B.V., is a company organized under the laws of Netherlands, which is a part of Mohawk Industries Inc., which is a Fortune 500 company and the world's largest flooring company with operations in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia and the US.

6. The plaintiff is the proprietor of the Indian patent no.193247 granted on 28^th January, 2005 which is the subject matter of the present suit (hereinafter referred to as ‘Suit Patent’).

7. The Defendant, Balaji Action Buildwell, is a partnership firm, involved in the field of manufacturing particle boards and fibre boards for use in flooring under the brand name ‘Action TESA®’, which allegedly infringes the plaintiff’s Suit Patent.

8. The present suit was filed on 13^th December, 2016. During the pendency of the suit, the term of the suit patent expired in April 2017.

9. The written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant on 6^th February, 2017 and replication thereto was filed on 3^rd April, 2017.

10. The present application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 20^th November, 2017 seeking to place on record the confidential documents which are in the nature of third-party license agreements entered into by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 1683/2016 Page 2 of 7 plaintiff.

11. It is unfortunate that the aforesaid application has remained pending till date, because of which the trial in the suit could not begin.

SUBMISSIONS

12. Ms. Swathi Sukumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that the relevant pleadings regarding the confidential third-party license agreements that are the subject matter of the present application have been made in paragraph 22 of the plaint.

13. Ms. Sukumar relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Agva Healthcare Private limited and Ors. v. Agfa-Gevaert NV and Anr. 2023 SCC Online Del 7914 to submit that additional documents should be taken on record where sufficient cause has been shown on behalf of the plaintiff. She further submits that in terms of Order XI Rule 1(5), no separate application is required to be filed on behalf of the plaintiff in order to show sufficient cause.

14. She also places reliance on the judgment in Telefonktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. Lava International Ltd. 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1354 in support of her contention that the aforesaid additional documents could not be filed by the plaintiff earlier as a confidentiality club was required to be constituted taking into account the confidential nature of the documents.

15. Mr. Chander M. Lall, senior counsel on behalf of the defendant su