patent infringement | Intellepedia

Mold-Tek Wins Patent Infringement Injunction Against Former Distributor

Patent infringement interim injunction India : Delhi High Court upholds tamper-evident packaging patents in Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v. Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd., 2026

In Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v. Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High Court found both tamper-evident packaging patents valid and prima facie infringed, granted an interim injunction, and rejected the Gillette Defence, in a patent infringement case where the rival’s CEO was once the plaintiff’s own authorised distributor.

Design Is Not a Shield: Delhi High Court on Patent Infringement in the Packaging Industry

Patent infringement packaging India - technical blueprint of tamper-evident pail closure system stamped infringement confirmed. Delhi High Court ruling on design registration vs patent protection in Mold-Tek v. Neway Industries

In Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd v. Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd, the Delhi High Court examined two cross-appeals arising from a patent infringement dispute over tamper-evident packaging closures. The central question: can a design registration protect a product against a patent infringement claim? The court’s answer carries serious implications for the packaging industry.

Breaking Beams, Breaking Records: Delhi High Court Awards ₹152 Crore in Antenna Patent Infringement Suit Against Rosenberger

Featured image for blog post on patent infringement damages in India - illustration of a cellular antenna tower contrasting symmetrical and asymmetrical beam patterns, representing Indian Patent No. 240893 upheld by the Delhi High Court in the landmark CCA v Rosenberger ruling awarding ₹152 crore in damages.

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of Indian Patent No. 240893 for asymmetrical beam antenna technology in Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik GmbH, rejecting all revocation grounds. The court awarded ₹152 crore in patent infringement damages – could this signal a new era for patent enforcement in India?

No double riding! Court clarifies on patent revocation plea in case involving Philips

The image shows a Businessman balancing with one foot on each of two small wooden boats in open water, illustrating the attempt by one of the Parties in this case to seek patent revocation through multiple forums.

In the case of Versuni Holding B.V. Trading as Preethi v. Maya Appliances Private Limited, the patent holder had already sued for infringement before the Delhi High Court. The alleged infringer then filed a written statement there seeking invalidity and revocation of the patent, but also filed a separate revocation petition before the Madras High Court. The Madras High Court dismissed that separate revocation petition and accepted the objection to its maintainability.

Frimline v. K-SMATCO: Delhi HC Rules Firmly in Pharmaceutical Patent Infringement Case

Prescription medicine bottles and tablets placed on a courtroom bench, symbolizing a pharmaceutical patent dispute and legal ruling.

In Frimline v. K-SMATCO, Delhi HC granted interim relief over patent IN 382949, citing strong prima facie infringement of Frimline’s pharmaceutical formulation.

No Territorial Jurisdiction, No Quia Timet Relief: Lessons from a Patent Case

A stylized laboratory scene showing a large blue capsule being constructed by steampunk-style mechanical arms, with sparks flying. A wooden sign next to the capsule reads "UNDER CONSTRUCTION," symbolizing a drug still in development. Various lab equipment is visible in the background.

In the case of Helsinn Healthcare SA vs AET Laboratories, the Delhi High Court declined to entertain a patent infringement action filed in anticipation of future infringement. The Court examined the territorial reach of Indian courts in web-based patent matters and reaffirmed the principles required to sustain quia timet actions.

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.