$~12 & 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO (COMM) 235/2025 NEWAY INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Khera, Ms. Sneha Sethia and Mr. Rohit, Advs.

versus MOLD-TEK PACKAGING LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Ms. Radhika Pareva, Mr. Adithya B., Mr. Yagya Passi, Mr. Ayush Sharma and Mr. Om, Advs.

14 + FAO (COMM) 241/2025, CM APPL. 53979/2025, CM APPL.

53981/2025, CM APPL. 53982/2025 & CM APPL. 53983/2025 MOLD TEK PACKAGING LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Ms. Radhika Pareva, Mr. Adithya B., Mr. Yagya Passi, Mr. Ayush Sharma and Mr. Om, Advs.

versus NEWAY INDUSTIES PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikas Khera, Ms. Sneha Sethia and Mr. Rohit, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 28.01.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

The lis

1. Indian Patents IN 401417, “IN’417” hereinafter, for a “Tamper-Evident Leak Proof Pail closure System” and IN 298724, “IN’724” hereinafter for a “A Tamper Proof Lid Having Spout for Containers and Process for Its Manufacture”, “the suit patents” collectively hereinafter stand registered in favour of Mold Tek Packaging Ltd, “Mold Tek” hereinafter. Mold Tek alleged that Neway Industries Pvt Ltd, ‘Neway” hereinafter was manufacturing and selling products which infringed the suit patents without any licence from it, within the meaning of Section 48⁶ of the Patents Act, 1970.

2. Mold Tek, therefore, has instituted CS (Comm) 01/2024 against Neway, praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining Neway from manufacturing or dealing in any product which would infringe the suit patents.

3. The suit was accompanied by an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908⁸, seeking an interim injunction against Neway, restraining continued

6 48. Rights of patentees.—Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act and the conditions

specified in Section 47, a patent granted under this Act shall confer upon the patentee—

(a) where the subject-matter of the patent is a product, the exclusive right to prevent third parties, who do not have his consent, from the act of making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing for those purposes that product in India;

(b) where the subject-matter of the patent is a process, the exclusive right to prevent third parties, who do not have his consent, from the act of using that process, and from the act of using, offering for sale, selling or importing for those purposes the product obtained directly by that process in India:

7 Mold Tek Packaging Ltd v. Neway Industries Pvt Ltd, also referred to, hereinafter, as “the suit”

infringement of the suit patents, pending disposal of the suit.

4. By ad interim order dated 8 January 2024, the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Patiala House, “the learned Commercial Court” hereinafter granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Mold Tek and against Neway.

5. Neway moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC, for vacation of the ad interim injunction granted on 8 January

2024.

6. By the impugned order dated 20 August 2025, the learned Commercial Court has confirmed the ad interim order of injunction qua IN’417 and has vacated the ad interim order qua IN’724.

7. Mold Tek and Neway are, therefore, both in appeal before us. Neway assails the impugned order to the extent it grants interim injunction qua IN’417. Mold Tek assails the order to the extent it rejects the prayer for interim injunction qua IN’724.

8. We have heard Mr. Vikas Khera for Neway and Mr. Jayant Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for Mold Tek, at length.

9. Neway pleaded, in the case of each of the suit patents, that its product did not infringe the patent and, additionally, that the patent itself was vulnerable to being revoked under Section 64, 64. Revocation of patents. of the (1) Subject to the pro