Delhi High Court: In a case wherein the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing its registered Patent (‘suit patent’), Prathiba M. Singh, J.*, opined that at this stage, instead of an injunction, which would result in complete stoppage of the production of containers/equipment only because the defendants’ honeycomb panel had been incorporated, an interim arrangement could be put into place to balance the interest of both the parties. Thus, the injunction order dated 27-07-2019 was modified only to the extent for supply to the Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Home Affairs or any other governmental body.
Background
The plaintiff is Enconcore N.V., a Belgium-based company who is a manufacture of honeycomb sandwich panels and parts, that were used across industries segments and products. The plaintiff claimed to have patented the technology in the production of thermoplastic honeycomb core materials and sandwich panels. Also, it had issued licenses for its patented technology to various companies that manufacture such panels. The plaintiff asserted to have licensed the technology to Tata Group in the UK, where Tata Steel was manufactured using the plaintiff’s patented polymer honeycomb production process. The suit patent was titled “Folded Honeycomb and Process for Producing the same” and the invention was related to folded honeycomb formed by a plastic deformation without using any cuts.
Defendant 1 is Anjani Technoplast Ltd., a company based out of Delhi engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of plastic products, special-purpose machines, moulds, safety, and security equipment for defence, bulletproof jackets, helmets, anti-riot control equipment, shields, etc. The plaintiff claimed that during an International Conference and Exhibition on Reinforced Plastics (ICERP) held in April 2013, a representative of the company came across the Honeycomb Panel, i.e., the infringing product exhibited by Defendant 1. Further, in February 2018, the plaintiff came across the infringing product of Defendant 1 sold under the brand name ‘HONCORZ’.
It was submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant’s panel that was exhibited, violated the plaintiff’s patent rights, thus, a legal notice was sent by the plaintiff to the defendants in February 2018. The same was followed up with another letter in March 2018; however, according to the plaintiff, no reply was received from the defendants. From an investigation conducted through a private investigator appointed by the plaintiff, it was revealed that the defendant’s products were marketed and sold through various retail websites and social media. Thereafter, the plaintiff’s Belgian Attorney, forwarded a sample of the product to an independent testing institute specializing in polymers and polymer processing which confirmed through their expert, that the defendants’ product infringed on the plaintiff’s patented product. After such confirmation of the infringing products of the defendants, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking an injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, using, and selling the said infringing products.
The defendants stated that their product falls completely outside the scope of the claims of the suit patent and it was the only non-Government supplier for Akash missiles, and had entered into exclusive agreements with Ministry of Defence companies DRDO, Bharat Dynamics Ltd. etc. Further it claimed that the technology and equipment used to manufacture honeycomb panels were all developed in-house through years of hard work and research. It was claimed that the process for manufacture of the honeycomb panels used by the plaintiff and the defendants was entirely different.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
On 27-07-2019, the Court had already granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction which explicitly restrained the defendant from marketing, selling, distributing, advertising, importing, offering for sale and in any manner directly or indirectly dealing in any product that infringes the claim of the plaintiff’s Patent and using, the process which is also covered by the plaintiff’s suit patent. Thereafter, a contempt application was filed by the plaintiff alleging that the defendants had not complied with the order. On behest of this application, local commissioners were instructed to obtain samples of honeycomb panels, and other necessary documentation of the defendants
The Court noted that the plaintiff was not manufacturing its honeycomb panels in India, nor it was selling the same, in India, whereas the defendant was clearly selling to the Ministry of Defence, and its various companies since 2012 and the containers of the defendant could not be sold without the panel, considering the purpose for which the containers were stated to be needed, that too by the Ministry of Defence. The Court relied on Franz Xaver Huemer v. New Yash Engineers, 1996 SCC OnLine Del 243 and opined that at this stage, instead of an injunction, which would result in complete stoppage of the production of containers/equipment only because the defendants’ honeycomb panel had been incorporated, an interim arrangement could be put into place to balance the interest of both the parties.
Thus, with the consent of the parties, an interim arrangement was put in place that only for the purpose of incorporating the honeycomb panel in containers or shelter homes supplied to the Ministry of Defence/Ministry of Home Affairs or any other governmental body, the defendants were permitted to manufacture and use honeycomb panels. Moreover, to safeguard the plaintiff’s interest, the Court directed the defendants to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs with the Registrar General of this Court..
The Court, in order to confirm the fact that in such missile containers, not more than 10% to 15% honeycomb panel was used, directed that CMD, Bharat Dynamics Ltd. shall nominate a Senior Scientist who shall inspect the defendants’ containers, mention the quantity of honeycomb panel incorporated/used, and file a report before this Court, in a sealed cover.
Thus, the injunction order dated 27-07-2019 was modified only to the above extent for supply to the Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Home Affairs or any other governmental body.
The matter would next be listed on 06-10-2023.
[Enconcore N.V v. Anjani Technoplast Ltd., 2023 SCC Online Del 4776, decided on 04-08-2023]
Judgment authored by: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Hemant Singh, Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, Mr. Siddhant Sharma, Mr. Abhay Tandon, Mr. Rishabh Paliwal, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Ms. Vibha Makhija, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pankaj Pandey, Mr. Anshuman Gupta, Mr. Karan Mamgain, Advocates along with Mr. R. K. Gupta, MD & Mr. Raghav Gupta
