Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 197
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DINESH MEHTA, Vimal Kumar Yadav, JJ
VISHAL CHOUDHARY – Appellant
Versus
SNPC MACHINES PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
FAO(OS) (COMM) 64/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, Mr. P.D.V. Srikar, Mr. Samik Mukherjee, Ms. Divyanshi Bansal
For the Respondents: Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Prakhar Singh, Ms. Nippur Sharma, Mr. Vihav Singh
The essence of the plaintiff's patent is mobile brick-making, which the appellant's machine infringed despite design differences, justifying the injunction.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLIII Rule 1 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Patents - The appellant challenged a temporary injunction prohibiting him from manufacturing and selling brick-making machines patented by the plaintiff, SNPC. The plaintiff holds patents Nos. 353483, 359114, 374814 & 385845 for innovative mobile brick-making machines designed to reduce manual labor. The appellant argued about the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and raised issues concerning infringement under various legal standards such as pith and marrow test versus all elements rule. The court found that while there were differences between the machines, they ultimately shared a common mechanism, leading to the conclusion that the injunction was necessary to protect the plaintiff's patent rights. The appeal was dismissed with costs. (Paras 1-62)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, SNPC, developed innovative brick-making machines that improved the efficiency and reduced the labor required in traditional methods, leading to four patent grants. The appellant was found to have created a machine that, while different, shared fundamental similarities with the patented designs.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the injunction on the grounds that the core principle of the plaintiff’s patent was mobility, essential for its operation, which was infringed by the appellant's similar machine.
Issues: The primary issues discussed included the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, the validity of the plaintiff's patent claims, and the demonstrated differences between the appellant's machine and the patented designs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of mobility as the essence of the plaintiff's invention and concluded that even with design differences, the appellant's machine violated the plaintiff's patent rights, necessitating the injunction.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case background and patent details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. appellant argues territorial jurisdiction issues. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. appellant contends significant differences in machinery. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. focus on infringement analysis and process comparison. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. discussion of legal standards for patent infringement. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. appellant's counter-claim and injunction considerations. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. discussion on the objectives of patent invention. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. respondent's preliminary objections regarding appeal merits. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 9. assessment of differences in function and design. (Para 37 , 38 , 40 , 41) |
| 10. discussion on the nature of patent rights and flexibility. (Para 42 , 43) |
| 11. court's stance on jurisdiction and necessary conditions. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 12. scope of appeal and standard of review. (Para 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 13. injunction criteria and comparative analysis of patents. (Para 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 14. core aspect of mobility in relation to patent rights. (Para 54 , 55 , 57 , 59) |
| 15. final judgment dismissing the appeal. (Para 61 , 62) |
JUDGMENT
Per DINESH MEHTA, J.
1. Instant appeal preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟) read with Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 , impugns the order dated 05.03.2024 passed in I.A. 11490/2023, whereby the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, filed by the respondents-SNPC Machines Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the „plaintiff‟ or „SNPC‟) was allowed and the appellant (hereinafter referred to as „Vishal Chaudhary‟ or the „defendant‟) was injuncted or restrained from using, making, manufacturing and selling subject brick-making machines qua which the plaintiff is having patents.
2. The facts germane to the present appeal are that the plaintiff (SNPC) is engaged in manufacture and sale of mobile brick-making machines qua which it holds four patents bearing Nos.353483, 359114, 374814 & 385845.
3. The plaintiff (respondent herein) filed a suit for permanent injunction alongwith the above referred application for temporary injunction claiming that it had developed a mobile brick-making machine, which has done away with traditional way of brick-making in which the raw bricks after being taken out from the moulds were laid on the ground for drying involving a lot of manual labour. The machines developed by SNPC have a different mechanism according to which the machines themselves work on the ground and spread the raw bricks in such a way that human labour in handling the bricks is eliminated. According to the plaintiff, the invention has revolutionised the process of brick-making in the world.
4. The respondent-plaintiff claimed that earlier, it was engaged in the business of brick-making by conventional method, which was labour- intensive and time-consuming and thereafter conceptualised and developed automated brick-making machine and created various prototypes of such machine in relation whereof the above referred patents were granted and after said process, (which continued between 2007 and 2014), the company was incorporated.
5. The respondent-SNPC applied for and was granted the above referred four patents. It also got its technical literature, data-sheet, specification, drawings, images etc. registered under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff claimed in the suit that it is a leading player in the field of brick-making and its machines are exported to various countries, including Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia etc.
6. Learned Single Judge heard the temporary injunction application and granted injunction in favour of the respondent vide his order under challenge.
7. Before proceeding to make submission on merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court of Delhi lacks territorial jurisdiction
