Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Falcon Autotech Private Limited, the plaintiff, alleging infringement of its patent titled ‘An Integrated Pre-Sortation System’ and seeking permanent and mandatory injunction, rendition of accounts, damages, and delivery up against the defendant, a Chinese entity, Mini Pushkarna, J., found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff due to blatant patent infringement and the clandestine operations of the defendant in India, and accordingly restrained the defendant from infringing upon the plaintiff’s patent.
The plaintiff argued that it had invested significant amounts of money, time, and resources in developing and manufacturing sorter machines. It claimed to have developed and delivered its first sorter system in 2015, specifically designed to optimize and automate critical processes within warehouse automation, logistics centres, and other material handling facilities. The plaintiff asserted that its pre-sorting system was an independent assembly, representing an advancement over existing prior art. According to the plaintiff, the pre-sorting systems have multiple applications in the supply chain, making them a valuable technology for e-commerce, supply chain, and delivery service providers.
The plaintiff averred that there had been no pre-grant opposition or post-grant challenge to the patent granted in its favour, however, in early June 2024, the plaintiff learned that the defendant had installed a sorter machine at one of the plaintiff’s client’s premises, which was alleged to have specifications, configuration, and usage nearly identical to the suit patent. Following an inspection on 10-07-2024, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant’s machine was functionally identical to its best-selling sorter machine, the subject of the suit patent. After thorough inspection, the plaintiff concluded that the defendant had copied, and reverse engineered every aspect of the suit patent.
The plaintiff brought the Court’s attention to a claim mapping through a visual comparison with the defendant’s allegedly infringing product and argued that the defendant was attempting to springboard its business in India by offering and selling infringing products to the plaintiff’s clients. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had adopted an illegal approach to compete with and displace the plaintiff from its primary market in India.
The Plaintiff submitted that the defendant, a China-based entity with no physical presence in India, was said to have a “Strike Off” status on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) website. The plaintiff further referenced a resolution from the defendant’s Indian company, which resolved to have its name struck off due to an inability to carry on business. Affidavits from the company’s directors indicated that the Indian entity had been inoperative since its inception and was defunct.
Despite this, the plaintiff pointed out that LinkedIn profiles of individuals claiming to be Project Managers and Employees of the defendant-company in India were still active, suggesting the company was clandestinely operating in the country. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s conduct was unfair and illegal, harming the plaintiff’s business in India.
Further, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had not obtained necessary licenses or permissions to operate in India, including Foreign Company registration, PAN, TAN, and GST, which would constitute a serious fraud against Indian customers and authorities. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant’s sale, supply, and marketing of infringing products could lead to consumer liability due to substandard quality and called for the defendant’s illegal business activities to be restrained in the public interest.
Upon hearing the submissions of the plaintiff and perusing the evidence on record, the Court said that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case for grant of injunction in its favour and that if no ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable losses. The Court observed that the balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiff, and against the defendant.
Therefore, the Court restrained the defendant and its directors, proprietor, successors, assignees, owners, servants, employees, subordinates, representatives, stockists, dealers, agents, franchisees, distributors, and all other person(s) acting for/on their behalf from selling, advertising, exhibiting, promoting, in any manner, infringing products or any product, which infringed upon the Suit Patent.
[Falcon Autotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Kengic Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5328, decided on 02-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocates for the Plaintiff: Sandeep Sethi, Sr Adv, Subhash Bhutoria, Sonal Alagh, Chhavi Singh, Shreya Sethi, Akshita, Advocates.
