Temporary Injunction Cases
M.C. Jayasingh Vs. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited (MIDHANI), Apollo Hospitals, Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited and Cancer Institute (W.I.A.), (Regional Cancer Centre)
The Appellant, Jayasingh, acquired a patent over a Prosthesis made of Titanium alloy, which is used in bone salvage surgery. On learning that the Respondents were making, selling, distributing and using Prosthesis that was covered by his patent, Jayasingh filed an infringement suit against the Respondents and prayed for an injunction during the pendency of the suit. After hearing the parties and reviewing the facts on record, the Court refused to grant temporary injunction to Jayasingh.
The Court stated that the ‘Hinge Knee Prosthesis’ of the Respondents was different from the Prosthesis claimed by Jayasingh because it did not have the polymer, rotating hinge mechanism, extending mechanism and so on that were present in the patented Prosthesis. Therefore, the Court pointed out that the Prosthesis of the Respondent was not prima facie similar or deceptively similar to that of the Appellant. The Court further observed that mere functional similarity of the products of the patent holder and the alleged infringer would not warrant the grant of a temporary injunction.
Considering the relevance of prosthesis to those who are in need of the same as a life saving equipment, its cost effectiveness and the functional advantage of a customised titanium prosthesis made and used by the Respondents, the Court stated that the balance of convenience was not in favour of Jayasingh. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that there was no proof of loss that would be suffered by Jayasingh if the injunction was not granted. Based on its analysis, the Court rejected the temporary injunction to Jayasingh and ordered the trial court to complete the infringement proceedings within four (4) months.