Patent claims must be construed holistically in their entirety, including the complete specification. The “characterized in” portion of a claim holds no special legal primacy under Indian law; therefore, infringement analysis must objectively compare all claimed technical features against the accused product.

JUDGMENT

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 1 August 2025, whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed IA 41112/2024, filed by the respondent as the plaintiff in CS (Comm) 860/2024¹1 Aquestia Limited v. Automat Industries Pvt. Ltd. & ors. The learned Single Judge has, in the impugned judgment, held that the Fluid Control Valve²2 “FCV” hereinafter, manufactured by the appellants and sold under the name “Hydromat Valve”, infringed Indian Patent IN 427050³3 “IN’050”, also referred to as “the suit patent” hereinafter of the respondent.

2. The appeal was strongly contested even on the aspect of issuance of notice and grant of interim relief.

3. We have heard Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pravin Anand, learned Counsel for the respondents, at length on these aspects and reserved orders thereon.

4. Ergo, this order.

5. We are conscious of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Wander Ltd v. Antox India P. Ltd ⁴4 1990 Supp SCC 727 which advises against interference with interlocutory orders passed by the Commercial Court in intellectual property matters, especially where the order involves an element of discretion. The relevant paragraph from Wander may be reproduced, thus:

“14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph⁵5 AIR 1960 SC 1156:

“... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton⁶6 1942 AC 130 ‘...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case’.”

6. Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra ⁷7 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701 reiterates this principle.

7. We have examined the present appeal and considered the rival submissions of learned Counsels, keeping in mind the declaration of the law in para 14 of Wander. Having done so, we are of the opinion, for the reasons which would presently become apparent, t