Case Note & Summary
The respondent, M/s. ABB India Limited, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellants for infringement of its patent IN 261418 titled 'Method and System for Controlling a Multilevel Inverter'. The trial court allowed IA No.4 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, granting an interim injunction restraining the appellants from manufacturing, selling, or using the patented invention. The appellants, including M/s. Inphase Power Technologies Private Limited and its directors, appealed against this order. The High Court of Karnataka, in a judgment dated 14 September 2016, dismissed both appeals. The court held that the respondent had made out a prima facie case of infringement, the balance of convenience was in favor of the respondent, and the appellants failed to establish any credible defense such as prior use or invalidity of the patent. The court noted that the patent was valid and subsisting, and the appellants' product prima facie fell within the scope of the patent claims. The court also observed that the appellants' arguments regarding prior use were not supported by sufficient evidence. Consequently, the interim injunction was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed with costs.
Headnote
A) Patent Law - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The court considered whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction in a patent infringement suit - Held that the plaintiff's patent was valid and subsisting, and the defendants' product prima facie infringed the patent - The court upheld the trial court's order granting injunction (Paras 1-10). B) Patent Law - Balance of Convenience - Irreparable Injury - The court weighed the balance of convenience between the parties - Held that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff as the defendants failed to establish any substantial defense or prior use - Irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff if injunction was not granted (Paras 11-15). C) Patent Law - Defense of Prior Use - The defendants claimed prior use of the invention - The court examined the evidence and found that the defendants failed to prove prior use or any credible challenge to the validity of the patent - Held that the defense of prior use was not made out (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting an interim injunction restraining the appellants from infringing the respondent's patent, and whether the appellants have a valid defense of prior use or invalidity of the patent.
Final Decision
Both Miscellaneous First Appeals are dismissed with costs. The order dated 20.02.2016 passed by the 18th Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, allowing IA No.4 in O.S.No.6254/15, is upheld.
Law Points
- Patent infringement
- interim injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable injury
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Section 104 of the Patents Act
- 1970
