Summary
Why Canva’s “Present and Record” Feature Is Still Restricted in India comes down to the continuation of an interim injunction in the RxPrism patent dispute. The ruling reinforces patent claim construction principles, element-by-element infringement analysis, and the limited scope of appellate interference in interim patent matters.
Introduction
This post examines the Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court involving Canva Pty Ltd & Ors and RxPrism Health Systems Pvt Ltd & Anr (28 January 2026). The decision arose from Canva’s appeal against an interim injunction granted by a Single Judge in a patent infringement suit filed by RxPrism. The Division Bench examined whether the Single Judge had applied the correct legal principles in granting interim relief. The Division Bench ultimately refused to interfere and allowed the injunction to continue pending trial.
RxPrism’s infringement suit and the Interim Injunction
RxPrism is the proprietor of Indian Patent No. 360726, which concerns a system for creation and dissemination of multimedia content through an architecture involving layered media components and configurable elements that together generate composite multimedia output. RxPrism commercially implemented the patented invention through its product “My Show & Tell.” RxPrism initiated infringement proceedings against Canva, alleging that Canva’s presentation-recording functionality known as “Present and Record” embodied the essential architecture claimed in the patent and therefore infringed it. A discussion of the Single Judge’s interim injunction order is available here: https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/pip-patent-dispute-indian-startup-canva-injunction/
At the interim stage of the suit, the learned Single Judge construed the claims, identified the core features of the patented system, and compared them with the impugned Canva functionality. The Single Judge ruled that the patented architecture was prima facie present and that the prior art relied upon by Canva did not sufficiently undermine the patent’s validity at this stage.
Accordingly, the Single Judge granted interim relief in favour of RxPrism. Canva was restrained from making the impugned system available in India pending trial, and directions were issued requiring Canva to deposit security in respect of past use along with costs in favour of RxPrism. While granting the interim injunction, the Single Judge asked Canva to make a deposit of Rs. 50 Lakh Rupees, and pay costs of 5 Lakh Rupees.
Canva appealed this order before the Division Bench.
Submissions of both parties before the Division Bench
Canva argued that the Single Judge had misidentified the essential elements of the patent and relied on functional similarity rather than a strict claim-based comparison. Canva further contended that certain features it considered central to the patent were absent in its system, and that the prior art demonstrated lack of inventive step. According to Canva, the injunction could not stand in view of these errors.
RxPrism opposed the appeal, submitting that the Single Judge had correctly undertaken claim construction and comparison. RxPrism argued that the appeal effectively sought re-evaluation of technical material rather than correction of legal error. RxPrism relied on the principle in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727, that appellate courts should not interfere with discretionary interim orders unless they are perverse or legally unsound.
Analysis of the Division Bench
The Division Bench reiterated that infringement analysis involved two steps: first, construction of the patent claims to determine their scope and essential elements, and second, comparison of those elements with the allegedly infringing system, relying on F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., (2016) 65 PTC 1 (Del) (DB). The Division Bench also noted that where each essential element of a claim is present, infringement may be established, and that equivalence may arise where substituted features perform substantially the same function in substantially the same manner to achieve the same result, relying on Sotefin SA v. Indraprastha Cancer Society, 2022:DHC:595, and FMC Corporation v. Natco Pharma Ltd., 2022/DHC/005311.
Applying these principles, the Division Bench opined that the Single Judge had correctly identified the core architecture claimed in the patent and had undertaken the necessary comparison with the impugned system and the cited prior art. The Division Bench found no inconsistency in claim construction and no legal error in the approach adopted at the interim stage.
Decision
In disposing of the appeal, the Division Bench:
- declined to interfere with the interim order passed by the Single Judge,
- affirmed that RxPrism had established a prima facie case at the interim stage,
- allowed the restraint on Canva’s use of the impugned system in India to continue pending trial, and
- left undisturbed the direction requiring Canva to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs as security, together with costs awarded to RxPrism.
Citation: Canva PTY Ltd. & Ors. V. RxPrism Health Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – FAO(OS) (COMM) 211/2023, CM APPLs. 49322/2023, 49325/2023, 63761/2023 & 63762/2023
Link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/95998423/
Article review and accessiblity review: Dr. Neetha Mohan