{"id":149554,"date":"2026-05-11T08:00:49","date_gmt":"2026-05-11T02:30:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/?p=149554"},"modified":"2026-05-11T09:47:34","modified_gmt":"2026-05-11T04:17:34","slug":"mold-tek-wins-patent-infringement-injunction-against-former-distributor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/mold-tek-wins-patent-infringement-injunction-against-former-distributor\/","title":{"rendered":"Mold-Tek Wins Patent Infringement Injunction Against Former Distributor"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]\"><strong>Background<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]\">What began as a commercial partnership ended in a courtroom, with a former distributor&#8217;s company at the receiving end of a patent injunction covering two of its erstwhile principal&#8217;s core packaging technologies.<\/p>\n<p class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]\">Mold-Tek Packaging Limited (&#8220;Mold-Tek&#8221;) is a publicly listed Hyderabad-based manufacturer of injection-moulded plastic containers for paints, lubricants, and food products. Two patents anchor this patent infringement dispute. Indian Patent No. 401417 (&#8220;Suit Patent I&#8221;), filed in September 2014 and granted in July 2022 under the Patents Act, 1970 (&#8220;Act&#8221;), covers a tamper-evident pail closure: a lid divided into primary and secondary zones by a manually peelable tear band, with a dual locking system in which lugs in the secondary portion penetrate spring-back hinges on the container body, and an inverted U-shaped peripheral channel providing additional leak-proof security. Indian Patent No. 298724 (&#8220;Suit Patent II&#8221;), filed in January 2009 and granted in July 2018, covers a tamper-proof main lid with an integrated pull-up spout, secured through a shrink-fit area and a tail ring crimped from below by a spinning operation to deliver a 100% leak-proof assembly.<\/p>\n<p class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]\">Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd. (&#8220;Pronton&#8221;) manufactures competing plastic containers, pails, and lids. The CEO of Pronton had previously headed M\/s Vaidehi Plastic Packaging (&#8220;Vaidehi&#8221;), an authorised Mold-Tek distributor operating under a confidentiality agreement executed in September 2017. In November 2023, Mold-Tek discovered on the IndiaMart platform that Pronton was selling products alleged to be structurally identical to its patented inventions, but of inferior quality.<\/p>\n<p class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]\">Mold-Tek filed suit before the Commercial Court, Patiala House, securing an ad-interim injunction on 20 December 2023. The Trial Court vacated it on 2 May 2024 following Pronton&#8217;s application. Pronton simultaneously filed a counter-claim challenging the validity of both patents, prompting the Trial Court to transfer the proceedings to the Delhi High Court under <strong>Section 104<\/strong> of the Act, renumbered as CS(COMM) 944\/2024 and CC(COMM) 31\/2024. On Mold-Tek&#8217;s appeal, a Division Bench set aside the vacation order on 11 July 2025 and remanded the interim injunction issue for fresh adjudication, resulting in the Delhi High Court&#8217;s judgment of 30 April 2026.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]\"><strong>Issues<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul class=\"[li_&amp;]:mb-0 [li_&amp;]:mt-1 [li_&amp;]:gap-1 [&amp;:not(:last-child)_ul]:pb-1 [&amp;:not(:last-child)_ol]:pb-1 list-disc flex flex-col gap-1 pl-8 mb-3\">\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body whitespace-normal break-words pl-2\">Whether Suit Patent I (IN&#8217;401417) is novel and inventive over the Prior Patent (IN&#8217;288127, &#8216;A Container With Lid Locking Involving Pilfer Proof Arrangement&#8217;) and prior art D1 (US7475788) under <strong>Sections 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja)<\/strong>, and <strong>64<\/strong> of the Act.<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body whitespace-normal break-words pl-2\">Whether Suit Patent II (IN&#8217;298724) is novel and inventive over the Ceased Patent (IN&#8217;207276, &#8216;A Pull Up Spout With Tamper Proof Seal&#8217;) under the same provisions.<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body whitespace-normal break-words pl-2\">Whether the Impugned Goods infringe the granted claims of Suit Patent I, including <strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">whether the<\/span> <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Doctrine of Pith and Marrow applies<\/span><\/strong> to a tear band that opens on three sides of the container only.<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body whitespace-normal break-words pl-2\">Whether the <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><strong>Doctrine of Gillette Defence<\/strong><\/span> defeats the infringement case under both Suit Patents.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]\"><strong>Mold-Tek&#8217;s Arguments<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul class=\"[li_&amp;]:mb-0 [li_&amp;]:mt-1 [li_&amp;]:gap-1 [&amp;:not(:last-child)_ul]:pb-1 [&amp;:not(:last-child)_ol]:pb-1 list-disc flex flex-col gap-1 pl-8 mb-3\">\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body whitespace-normal break-words pl-2\">Patent infringement must be assessed by comparing the granted claims against the impugned product, not through a product-to-product comparison: <em>Sotefm SA v. Indraprastha Cancer Society<\/em> (2022:DHC:595) and <em>F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd.<\/em> (2015 SCC OnLine Del 14738). Both of Pronton&#8217;s expert reports compared ornamental design features and product samples rather than mapping patent claims to the Impugned Goods and were therefore legally irrelevant.<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body whitespace-normal break-words pl-2\">Even if Pronton&#8217;s tear band opens on only three sides, the Impugned Goods still infringe Suit Patent I under the Doctrine of Pith and Marrow, because the essential functional elements \u2014 tear band, dual locking system, and secondary portion remaining attached to the container \u2014 are reproduced; relying on <em>Raj Parkash v. Mangat Ram Chowdhry<\/em> (1977 SCC OnLine Del 33) and <em>FMC Corporation v. Natco Pharma<\/em> (2022 SCC OnLine Del 4249).<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body whitespace-normal break-words pl-2\">Pronton failed to &#8220;clear the way&#8221; before launching: no pre- or post-grant opposition under <strong>Section 25<\/strong>, no revocation petition under <strong>Section 64<\/strong>, no non-infringement declaration under <strong>Section 105<\/strong> \u2014 failures made more serious by the CEO&#8217;s prior access to Mold-Tek&#8217;s confidential technology through the Vaidehi distributor relationship; relying on <em>Merck Sharp v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals<\/em> (2015 SCC Online Del 8227).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]\"><strong>Pronton&#8217;s Arguments<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul class=\"[li_&amp;]:mb-0 [li_&amp;]:mt-1 [li_&amp;]:gap-1 [&amp;:not(:last-child)_ul]:pb-1 [&amp;:not(:last-child)_ol]:pb-1 list-disc flex flex-col gap-1 pl-8 mb-3\">\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body whitespace-normal break-words pl-2\">Suit Patent I is anticipated by the Prior Patent (IN&#8217;288127), which discloses substantially the same lid and container combination; the claimed features amount to the inherent effects of generic industry components and lack novelty under Sections 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja), and 64.<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body whitespace-normal break-words pl-2\">The tear band in the Impugned Goods opens on three sides only; the lid cannot be &#8220;completely lifted&#8221; as claim 1 of Suit Patent I requires, so there is no infringement. The Gillette Defence based on prior art D1 (US7475788) applies, as D1 discloses a substantially similar three-sided tear band closure.<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body whitespace-normal break-words pl-2\">Suit Patent II is an evergreening attempt filed immediately after the Ceased Patent (IN&#8217;207276) lapsed; the Ceased Patent&#8217;s drawings disclose substantially the same spout assembly, and non-disclosure of the Ceased Patent violates Section 3(d) of the Act.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]\"><strong>Court&#8217;s Observations and Analysis<\/strong><\/h2>\n<h3 class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]\"><strong>Suit Patent I: Novelty over the Prior Patent and D1<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]\">The court noted that the Prior Patent (IN&#8217;288127) uses a different locking architecture: its secondary portion locks through an internal cooperating region on the container body, whereas Suit Patent I&#8217;s secondary section uses lugs that penetrate spring-back hinges permanently formed in the container wall. Separately, the inverted U-shaped peripheral channel under claim 5 and the load-transfer container combination with tapered sidewalls under claim 6 find no equivalent in the Prior Patent. Prior art D1 (US7475788) is structurally more remote still: it discloses a three-sided tear band that leaves the lid permanently tethered to the container via a hinge, with no locking-teeth mechanism of any kind. The court therefore found that Suit Patent I was novel over both cited references.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]\"><strong>The Three-Sides Argument and Infringement of Suit Patent I<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]\">Pronton argued that because its tear band opens on only three sides, the primary portion of the lid cannot be &#8220;completely lifted&#8221; as claim 1 requires, and there is therefore no infringement. The court rejected this, and the rejection came from an unlikely source: Pronton&#8217;s own expert report. That report, though it labelled the channel in the Impugned Goods &#8220;V-shaped&#8221;, produced annotated diagrams that confirmed the presence of inner and outer walls, wedge-shaped locking teeth, and a functioning dual-locking mechanism, the very features claimed in Suit Patent I.<\/p>\n<p>The court held that the V-shaped channel was functionally equivalent to the U-shaped channel in the patent claims, and that the operating mechanism fell squarely within claim 1. Both expert reports filed in the case were dismissed as legally irrelevant since neither mapped the granted claims against the features of the Impugned Goods, which is the only permissible methodology for patent infringement analysis in India.<\/p>\n<p>Mold-Tek had argued in the alternative that even a three-sided tear band would infringe under the <strong>Doctrine of Pith and Marrow<\/strong>, since all essential functional elements of the patent were reproduced. The court did not need to reach that question &#8211; having found the claimed features present on the face of Pronton&#8217;s own evidence, it resolved infringement on the narrower and more direct ground, leaving the doctrine&#8217;s application to these facts unaddressed. The Impugned Goods were prima facie found to infringe Suit Patent I.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]\"><strong>Suit Patent II: Validity, the Ceased Patent, and the Gillette Defence<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]\">Pronton&#8217;s challenge to Suit Patent II rested entirely on the Ceased Patent (IN&#8217;207276). The court found the two inventions structurally distinct at every meaningful point. In Suit Patent II, the tamper-evident seal is built into the lid body itself; the spout base is secured through a shrink-fit area; and a tail ring is crimped onto the spout from below through a spinning operation. In the Ceased Patent, an independent metal sealing ring holds a flexible extendable spout from the top of the lid, and there is no tail ring, no shrink-fit assembly, and no spinning process anywhere in its specification.<\/p>\n<p class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]\">For prior art to defeat a patent, its drawings must disclose all the structural features claimed. The Ceased Patent&#8217;s drawings do not show the tail ring, the M-shaped end member, or the spinning process that gives Suit Patent II its inventive character. The Gillette Defence therefore failed at the threshold: Pronton could not show that the Impugned Goods were substantially based on the Ceased Patent when that patent did not itself disclose the key features present in those goods. Suit Patent II was held valid and prima facie infringed.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]\"><strong>Prima Facie Case and the Obligation to Clear the Way<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]\">With both patents upheld, the three conditions for an interim injunction, i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm, were each satisfied. The court placed particular weight on Pronton&#8217;s failure to clear the way before entering the market: it had filed no pre- or post-grant opposition under <strong>Section 25<\/strong>, no revocation petition under Section 64, and did not seek any non-infringement declaration under Section 105. That failure carried extra significance here because Pronton&#8217;s CEO had previously run Mold-Tek&#8217;s authorised distributor and operated under a confidentiality agreement, giving him direct prior exposure to the very technology now in dispute. The court held that a defendant in that position, carries a heightened obligation to challenge the patent through proper legal channels before launching a competing product. Pronton had done none of that, and therefore, an injunction had to be granted.<\/p>\n<h2>Findings<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>\n<div class=\"paragraph\"><strong>Suit Patent I is valid and novel<\/strong> with respect to D1 and the Prior Patent. The secondary locking mechanism with locking teeth and spring-back hinges, and the inverted U-shaped peripheral channel, are not disclosed in the prior art.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div class=\"paragraph\"><strong>Suit Patent II is valid and novel<\/strong> with respect to the Ceased Patent. The M-shaped circular leak-proof end member, shrink fit area, and tail ring area are distinct features not found in the prior art.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div class=\"paragraph\"><strong>The Gillette Defence fails<\/strong> because the defendant could not demonstrate that the impugned goods fall within a single prior art. The reliance on multiple documents to cobble together a defence undermined the very premise of the Gillette argument.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div class=\"paragraph\"><strong>The impugned goods prima facie infringe<\/strong> both Suit Patent I and Suit Patent II. The claim-by-claim mapping confirms that the defendant&#8217;s products incorporate all essential features of the granted claims.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div class=\"paragraph\"><strong>The balance of convenience favors Mold -Tek.<\/strong> Pronton&#8217;s prior connection as a distributor, failure to clear the way, and registration of copied designs demonstrate mala fide intent and weigh against allowing continued infringement during the pendency of the suit.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Case Citation:<\/strong> Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v. Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 944\/2024, CC(COMM) 31\/2024, decided by the Delhi High Court on 30.04.2026. Available on: <a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/7060346\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/7060346\/<\/a><\/p>\n<p><strong>Authored by Gaurav Mishra, Patent &amp; Design Attorney, BananaIP Counsels<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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&#8217;s CEO was once the plaintiff&#8217;s own authorised distributor.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":149556,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":4,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5495,6,14],"tags":[12684,486,12681,12381,4374,12685,16,609,12683,12556,12682],"class_list":["post-149554","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-case-reviews","category-intellectual-property","category-patents","tag-claim-mapping","tag-delhi-high-court","tag-doctrine-of-pith-and-marrow","tag-gillette-defence","tag-interim-injunction","tag-packaging-industry-patents","tag-patent-infringement-2","tag-patents-act-1970","tag-section-25-patent-opposition","tag-section-64","tag-tamper-evident-packaging"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149554","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\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=149554"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149554\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":149557,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149554\/revisions\/149557"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/149556"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}