Manmohan Singh, J.

1. By this order I propose to decide the two applications, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 filed by the plaintiff and under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC filed by the defendants.

2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining defendants from infringing the registered patent No.211175 granted by the patent office on 17th October, 2007 registered in respect of “Flat Folded Personal Respiratory Device and process for preparing the same” in favour of plaintiff No.1(hereinafter referred to as the “suit patent”). The patent is valid in India for 20 years from the date of application made by the plaintiff No.1 on 26th May, 1999.

3. Plaintiff No. 1 is a company incorporated in the USA. Plaintiff No.2 is the Indian subsidiary of plaintiff no.1 having its office at Bangalore. Defendant No.1 is an Indian company having its office at Navi Mumbai who is manufacturer of respiratory protection devices including particulate filtering masks, half masks, full face masks etc. Defendant No.2 is a distributor of the products manufactured/offered for sale by defendant No.1, having its office at New Delhi.

4. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC being I.A. 20605/2013 was filed. When both the suit and application were listed before Court on 18th December, 2013, summons were issued in the suit and notice in the application. An ex parte order was passed restraining the defendants in terms of prayer (a) of the application from infringing the patent rights of the plaintiff no.1 under the suit patent by making, manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling and importing the respiratory protection device (Model No. V-4410) and/or any other devices covered by the suit patent or otherwise.

5. Upon service, the defendants have filed reply to the interim application and also an application under Order 39 Rule 4 being I.A. No. 1276/2014 seeking vacation of the said interim order dated 18th December 2013. The defendants have also filed written statement and counter claim challenging the validity of the patent. The plaintiff’s application under Order 39 Rule 2A read with section 151 CPC for violation of ex-parte order is also pending wherein the notice has been issued and time to file reply is granted to the defendants.

6. By this order I propose to decide the two applications, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff and under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC filed by defendants.

Plaintiff’s Case

7. The relevant facts germane to the disposal of these applications mentioned above are that the plaintiff No.1 is the owner of the suit patent granted by the Indian Patent Office on 17th October, 2007. The suit patent is being used in relation to a respiratory protection device adaptable to be worn by a wearer for protection against air pollution specifically for dusts and bears product No.3M 9004 IN and 3M ID: IA520143149 (hereinafter referred to as the “patented device”). In the plaint it is alleged that the plaintiffs’ parent company 3M Company was established in the year 1902 and has been involved in several inventions and discoveries in various markets, from health care to highway safety to consumer and office products, optical films for LCD displays etc. The plaintiff No.1 operates in five business segments viz health care, industrial and transportation, consumer and office, safety and graphics, and electronics and energy. The details of its sales, investments in research and development, ranking etc. are given in Para 11 and 12 of the plaint. In India, the 3M company’s presence dates back to 1987 with the formation of ‘Birla 3M Limited’, a joint venture which was subsequently changed to plaintiffNo.2 in December 2002. The details of turnover and investments in research and development of plaintiff No.2 are given in Para 13 and 14 of the plaint. The details of the sales figures of its respirators in the Asia-Pacific c