Authored By: Piyush Kumar
Lloyd School of Law
CS(COMM) 881/2024
CANNOT CLAIM LIFETIME MONOPOLY: DELHI HIGH COURT REFUSES INTERIM INJUCTION TO TOYOTA IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASE
ABSTRACT
The case was before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The judgement of this case is given by single judge bench of hon’ble high court. It is a case related to Patent Infringement. The case is involved between two parties Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki is plaintiff in this case. LMW Ltd. is Defendant in this present case. The plaintiff has 228 patents and in which IN759 and IN883, involved in the present proceedings. The analysis of the decision passed by Hon’ble Justice Banerjee in the present case will assist the author in identifying, exploring, and analysing the case properly. This case will help in gaining a clearer picture of the laws surrounding the Patent infringement in India.
PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE
Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court |
Date of Judgement: July 01, 2025 |
Coram: Honourable Mr Justice Saurabh Banerjee |
BRIEF FACTS ABOUT THE CASE
Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki, is located in Japan, and was founded in the year 1926 under the name of Toyoda Automatic Loom Works Ltd. to manufacture and sell automated looms. The plaintiff is carrying on its business through its Indian subsidiary having its office at Bangalore.
The plaintiff has several research and development centres and has been granted over 228 patents in India till date, two of which are IN759 and IN883, involved in the present proceedings. Alongside IN759, the plaintiff has also been granted corresponding patent applications in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China.
On 24.05.2005, the plaintiff applied for IN759 titled “FIBER BUNDLE CONCENTRATING APPARATUS IN SPINNING MACHINE” vide Conventional Application bearing no.629/CHE/2005, with a priority date of 28.05.2004. The said IN759 was then published under Section 11A of the Patents Act, 19705 on 21.09.2007, whereafter, the First Examination Report (FER) was issued on 22.01.2010. The said FER was responded by the plaintiff on 04.05.2010. IN759 was granted to plaintiff on 20.12.2010.
LMW Ltd., is a company having its office at Coimbatore, registered under the laws of India in the year 1962, and is a part of a group of companies established in 1910 for providing spinning technology to Indian textile mills, today catering to both the domestic as well as international market in Asia, Africa, Europe and Oceania. Over the years, the defendant has diversified into manufacturing machine tools and precision castings for industries world over including manufacturing components for the aerospace industry. The defendant has itself filed around 679 patent applications worldwide, including 282 patents and patent applications over the years in India.
ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE
These are the major issues involved in this patent right as mentioned below: 1. Will plaintiff got the lifetime monopoly of patent rights?
- Will plaintiff got interim relief and monetary damages?
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Plaitiff
Plaintiff has contended that the defendant is using/ intending to use and supply its patented technology claimed and granted in IN759 and IN883 without authorization from the plaintiff in its spinning machine known as Spinpact.
Plaintiff also submitted that all the claims of IN759, especially the independent claim of grooves on the bottom nip roller with depth greater than or equal to 0.04mm (being 0.15mm in Spinpact), have been implemented by the defendant in Spinpact, and the same amounts to clear infringement of the patent of the plaintiff in IN759 by the defendant.
Plaintiff accused the defendant that defendant has not raised the defense of non implementation of the technology disclosed in IN759 and hence use of the same by the defendant must be deemed as admitted. Also, while the defendant has
mentioned/ provided an alternate technology in relation to the technology disclosed in IN883, there is no such alternate technology mentioned/ provided in relation to IN759 by the defendant.
Plaintiff also submitted that in order to raise a question on the validity of a patent, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show certain scientific material in order to raise a credible challenge to the patent even at an interlocutory stage, and the defendant is required to “clear the way” either by filing a pre-grant or a post-grant opposition, or by filing a revocation petition. [Strix Ltd. v. Maharaja Appliances Ltd.]
Plaintiff submitted that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the plaintiff for grant of an interim injunction as the defendant has gone ahead with implementing the technology disclosed in IN759 without “clearing the way” by invoking revocation proceedings. [Eisai Co. Ltd. & Anr. V Satish Reddy & Anr.]
Toyota (Plaintiff) is actively engaged in marketing and sale of yarn spinning machines with the patented technology as claimed and granted in both IN759 and IN883 worldwide.
Defendant
Defendant emphasized that they have claimed non infringement, and in relation to the technology involved in IN759 submitted that the defendant acquired the know how thereof through a German company and developed the technology prior to the plaintiff’s IN759 patent. In any event, the said technology involved in IN759 lacks novelty and inventive step and was conventionally known and already in public domain since it was disclosed in the prior arts, as well as grooves with depth greater than 0.04mm were already being used on the bottom nip rollers of spinning machines by the plaintiff prior to the priority date claimed in IN759 patent.
Defendant submitted that the principle of “clearing the way” only comes into effect to determine the balance of convenience, prior whereto the burden is on the plaintiff to establish both a prima facie case, as also irreparable harm, loss and injury.
Judgement/Final Decision
Issue 1:
The court emphasized that as per Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, a patent is valid only for 20 years from the filing date. Once expired, no legal protection or
injunction can be granted over it. Therefore, IN759, having expired on 24.05.2025, has entered the public domain, and no interim injunction can be granted.
Issue 2:
Interim injunction application dismissed due to expiry of the patent. Case to proceed to trial for determining: Whether infringement occurred before expiry, and whether plaintiff is entitled to financial damages.
IMPORTANT CASES REFERRED
✔ Strix Ltd. v. Maharaja Appliances Ltd. [2009 SCC OnLine Del 2825] ✔ Eisai Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Satish Reddy & Anr [2019:DHC:2476] ✔ Avery Dennison Corporation v. Controller of Patents [2022:DHC:4697] ✔ M/s. Bishwanath Prasad Radhe Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries [(1979) 2 SCC 511]
✔ Ten XC Wireless INC and Another v. Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. [2011:DHC:5605]
✔ Astrazeneca AV and Another v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2020:DHC:3270]
✔ Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mahomed Haji Lateef and others [(1968) 3 SCR 862]
✔ F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd. and another v. Cipla Ltd [148 (2008) DLT 598] ✔ Novartis AG & Anr. v. Natco Pharma Limited [SLP(C) No.16237/2024]
