patent infringement | Intellepedia

Products Made During Patent Term are Infringing Even After Expiry

In the case of Boehringer Ingelheim v. Femilab Healthcare, the Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that interim injunctions granted to prevent patent infringement cannot continue after the patent has expired. The court held that such relief loses effect with the end of the patent term. However, it stated that infringing products made during the patent’s validity may still be restrained from being sold or used after the patent expires.

Delhi High Court Patent Injunction: Aquestia Wins Against Automat Industries

A 3D-rendered digital image depicting a legal and engineering theme. The foreground shows a judge's gavel resting on legal documents with metal fittings and coins scattered nearby. In the background, mechanical valve systems are integrated with justice scales, symbolizing a legal dispute over industrial components, likely fluid control valves. The scene combines elements of law and technology, representing a patent conflict or court ruling in an engineering context.

Delhi High Court grants patent injunction to Aquestia, stopping Automat from selling Hydromat valves over suspected patent infringement.

Patented But Still Infringing: Delhi HC Stops Hydromat Valve Sales

Close-up view of industrial metal control valves and piping system, showing aged and weathered valve wheels used for regulating fluid flow.

In the case of Aquestia Limited vs Automat Industries Private Limited & Ors., the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing and selling their ‘Hydromat’ valves. The court held that even a patented product can infringe an earlier patent, and found that the defendants’ valves incorporated the core features of the plaintiff’s fluid control valve patent claims.

Court Awards ₹50 Lakh to GSP Crop Science in Patent Infringement Case Over Agrochemical Formula

Wooden letter tiles arranged to spell "SELLER LIABILITY," highlighting the concept of seller liability in Patent infringement cases

Delhi HC orders ₹50 lakh in damages to GSP Crop Science for patent infringement in agrochemicals, affirming seller liability under Indian patent law.

Dolby v. Lava: INR 20 Crore Deposit Ordered in SEP patent infringement case

Delhi HC directs Lava to deposit ₹20 crore as pro tem security in Dolby’s SEP infringement suit involving AAC audio tech patents.

Who Bears the Patent Credibility Challenge Burden?

A photo featuring Auguste Rodin's sculpture The Thinker positioned outdoors against a backdrop of green trees and blue sky. On the left side, there is a dense leafy tree, while on the right, a classical stone building with columns is partially visible.

Mold Tek filed a case for infringement of its patents relating to tamper-proof plastic lids, and secured an interim injunction. The Commercial Court vacated the injunction, placing the burden of establishing validity on the patentee. The Delhi High Court reversed this, clarifying that it is the defendant’s burden to raise a credible invalidity defence under Section 107.

Patent Upheld, Design Dismissed: Dura-Line vs. Jain Irrigation – Part 1: Infringement & Relief

Illustration showing two people in discussion on the left and a justice scale on the right, with the text in between: “Dura-Line to Jain Irrigation: We Patented It. You Replicated It.” on a light green background.

This post analyzes the Delhi High Court’s decision in Dura-Line vs. Jain Irrigation, where the Court found patent infringement but rejected the design infringement claim.

When Dye Becomes Decisive: Patent Infringement, Equivalence, and Estoppel

A farmer on a tractor ploughing a sunlit field, with a backdrop of green hills and a molecular structure overlay, symbolising agricultural innovation and chemical formulation.

In a patent infringement case, the Delhi High Court denied Crystal Crop Protection’s request for an interim injunction against Safex Chemicals. The dispute in the case centred on a herbicidal formulation containing Clodinafop, Metribuzin, and a dyeing agent. The Court held that the dye was an essential claim element and that Safex’s dye-free products did not infringe, even by equivalence. It also invoked prosecution history estoppel, noting that Crystal’s own claim amendments precluded a broad claim interpretation.

Madras High Court Dismisses Patent Infringement Suit, Allows Coexistence of Technologies

The Madras High Court ruled on a patent infringement dispute involving Arumugam Rajendra Babu and Ashok Leyland over battery-swapping technology. The Court found no infringement and dismissed both the suit and counterclaims, allowing both parties to coexist. The ruling addressed prior art, novelty, and the scope of patent protection in the electric vehicle sector.

Court refuses interim injunction based on Patent Prosecution History

The Delhi High Court refused an interim injunction in a patent dispute over a fuel cap, citing ambiguous claims and prosecution history. The judgment highlights the need for precise claim drafting and careful interpretation in patent litigation.