{"id":145253,"date":"2025-08-21T08:00:21","date_gmt":"2025-08-21T02:30:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/?p=145253"},"modified":"2025-08-21T00:01:27","modified_gmt":"2025-08-20T18:31:27","slug":"hydromat-valve-patent-infringement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/hydromat-valve-patent-infringement\/","title":{"rendered":"Patented But Still Infringing: Delhi HC Stops Hydromat Valve Sales"},"content":{"rendered":"

Patent Infringement Claims<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Aquestia Limited, an Israeli company engaged in control and management of liquid conveyance systems, owns Indian Patent No. 427050 for a fluid control valve. The invention features an asymmetric sealing diaphragm, with the portion over the inlet side having a larger area than the portion over the outlet side, resulting in improved performance at low pressure and reduced diaphragm drift.<\/p>\n

The defendants launched \u2018Hydromat\u2019 valves, claiming protection under their own Indian Patent No. 478536. One of the inventors of this later patent had earlier worked with Netafim, the plaintiff\u2019s distributor, and had been involved in the development of the plaintiff\u2019s valve technology.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff alleged that the Hydromat valves were covered under its patent claims and relied on Claim 1, which described a fluid control valve where:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 the sealing diaphragm is asymmetric with respect to an apex thereof, and a portion of the sealing diaphragm extending from the apex over the inlet path has larger area than a portion \u2026 over the outlet path.\u201d<\/p>\n

Tests conducted by the plaintiff showed the defendants\u2019 diaphragm area on the inlet side measured about 4,900 mm\u00b2 compared to about 4,485 mm\u00b2 on the outlet side – matching the claimed configuration. It argued that the \u201ccurved sealing bridge\u201d promoted by the defendants was irrelevant to infringement because Claim 1 covered sealing bridges of any shape, with dependent claims expressly including curved or concave forms.<\/p>\n

Defendants\u2019 Contentions<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The defendants contended that their own granted patent shielded them from infringement claims, that their diaphragm was symmetrical, and that the curved sealing bridge was a novel feature absent from the plaintiff\u2019s patent. They also raised objections of delay, absence of Indian sales, and public interest concerns linked to supply for government projects.<\/p>\n

Court on Patent Immunity<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The court clarified that owning a granted patent does not give the patentee a right to practise their invention if it infringes an earlier valid patent. Under Indian law, a patent grants only an exclusionary right<\/strong> – the right to stop others from using the patented invention – and does not automatically allow the patent holder to use their own product if it falls within the scope of another\u2019s prior patent.<\/p>\n

Referring to precedent, the court emphasised that a later patent holder could still be an infringer, and infringement must always be determined through claim-to-product<\/strong> comparison, not by comparing one product to another.<\/p>\n

Claim Comparison and Infringement Analysis<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The court undertook a claim mapping exercise<\/strong> comparing Claim 1 of the suit patent with the defendants\u2019 Hydromat valve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\t\n\t
Feature from Claim 1 of Suit Patent<\/strong><\/th>Finding in Hydromat Valve<\/strong><\/th>Court\u2019s Conclusion<\/strong><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Sealing diaphragm is asymmetric with respect to the apex<\/td>Diaphragm divided by a concave rib through the apex, areas visibly unequal<\/td>Matches claim<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Portion of diaphragm over inlet path larger than portion over outlet path<\/td>Measured inlet area: ~4,900 mm\u00b2; outlet area: ~4,485 mm\u00b2<\/td>Matches claim<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Sealing bridge - shape not limited (straight or curved)<\/td>Defendants\u2019 bridge curved; dependent claim of suit patent includes curved shape<\/td>Covered within claim scope<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n

The court noted that the defendants had not rebutted the plaintiff\u2019s measurements with any evidence. Further, the\u00a0 Court stated that the defendants\u2019 own patent specification admitted that the upstream (inlet) area was larger – consistent with the suit patent\u2019s configuration. Based on this mapping, the court found that the Hydromat valves fell squarely within the scope of Claim 1 of the plaintiff\u2019s patent.<\/p>\n

The court also took note of evidence showing that the former employee involved in the defendants\u2019 patent had participated in technical discussions on the plaintiff\u2019s valve during his earlier role.<\/p>\n

Rejection of Delay and Sales Defences<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The court accepted the plaintiff\u2019s explanation for the delay in filing the suit, which included operational disruptions due to the October 2023 terrorist attack near its Israeli facilities. Invoices showed sales in India since 2021, disproving the claim of no commercial presence.<\/p>\n

Interim Injunction Order<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of infringement, with the balance of convenience in its favour and risk of irreparable harm. It restrained the defendants from manufacturing, selling, exporting, or otherwise dealing in the infringing products, and directed the removal of listings from all platforms.<\/p>\n

Case Citation: <\/strong>Aquestia Ltd. v. Automat Indus. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.<\/em>, CS (COMM) 860\/2024, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4883 (India), available at https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/113756547\/<\/a> (last visited Aug. 12, 2025).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 \u2018Hydromat\u2019 valves. The court held that even a patented product can infringe an earlier patent, and found that the defendants\u2019 valves incorporated the core features of the plaintiff\u2019s fluid control valve patent claims.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":145261,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":90,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5495,6,14],"tags":[12252,12253,486,12254,12251,4374,3374,16,753,12255],"class_list":["post-145253","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-case-reviews","category-intellectual-property","category-patents","tag-aquestia-limited","tag-automat-industries","tag-delhi-high-court","tag-fluid-control-valve","tag-hydromat-valves","tag-interim-injunction","tag-ip-litigation","tag-patent-infringement-2","tag-patent-law-india","tag-valve-technology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145253","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=145253"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145253\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":145263,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145253\/revisions\/145263"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/145261"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145253"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145253"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145253"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}