Introduction
The Delhi High Court in a detailed Division Bench judgment delivered on 28 January 2026, addressed cross-appeals arising from an interim injunction order in a patent infringement suit concerning tamper-evident and leak-proof packaging systems for containers, particularly pails and lids.
The Court upheld the injunction against Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. for alleged infringement of Mold-Tek Packaging Limited’s patent IN 401417 while setting aside the vacation of injunction for patent IN 298724, thereby restoring interim protection for both patents pending trial.
This ruling emphasizes the high threshold for defendants to credibly challenge patent validity at the interim stage and reinforces the application of infringement tests like pith-and-marrow and doctrine of equivalents in prima facie assessments.
Factual Background
This decision from the Delhi High Court in cross-appeals under FAO(COMM) 235/2025 and 241/2025 clarifies the evidentiary burden on defendants seeking to defend patent infringement suits by raising invalidity grounds under Sections 64 and 107 of the Patents Act, 1970, at the interim injunction stage under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd., holder of two granted Indian patents for innovative tamper-evident closure systems used in plastic pails and containers for food and industrial storage, alleged infringement by Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd.’s competing products.
Procedural History
The Commercial Court had partially confirmed and partially vacated the initial ad-interim injunction, prompting appeals from both sides.
The Division Bench examined infringement mappings, prior art challenges, and equitable considerations, ultimately tilting the balance in favor of preserving status quo through injunctions for both patents while remanding certain validity aspects for deeper trial scrutiny.
Key Legal Observations
- The judgment underscores that registered patents enjoy a presumption of validity.
- Defendants must discharge a substantial prima facie burden to rebut infringement or establish invalidity to defeat interim relief.
- This is particularly so when claim charts and technical comparisons reveal substantial embodiment of essential inventive features.
The Suit Patent
Mold-Tek Packaging Limited holds Indian Patent No. IN 401417 titled “Tamper-Evident Leak Proof Pail Closure System” and Indian Patent No. IN 298724 titled “A Tamper Proof Lid Having Spout for Containers and Process for Its Manufacture”, both granted and subsisting.
These patents cover specialized plastic closure systems featuring tamper-evident bands, peel-off rings, gaskets, and integrated spouts designed to ensure leak-proof sealing, tamper detection, and ease of use in pails and containers for food, chemicals, and other goods.
Allegations of Infringement
Mold-Tek alleged that Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. was manufacturing, selling, and offering products that directly embodied the essential features of these patented inventions without license, thereby infringing Mold-Tek’s exclusive rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Defence and Invalidity Claims
Neway denied infringement, asserting that its products differed in construction and functionality, and further contended that both patents were invalid on grounds of lack of novelty, obviousness, and anticipation by prior art (including foreign patents and an Indian application IN 288127), availing defenses under Section 107.
Summary of the Patents
| Patent Number | Title | Core Subject Matter |
|---|---|---|
| IN 401417 | Tamper-Evident Leak Proof Pail Closure System | Tamper-evident and leak-proof closure system for pails and containers |
| IN 298724 | A Tamper Proof Lid Having Spout for Containers and Process for Its Manufacture | Tamper-proof lid with spout and associated manufacturing process |
Procedural Background
Mold-Tek instituted Commercial Suit CS(Comm) 01/2024 before the District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, seeking permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs for patent infringement.
Interim Injunction Application
- Accompanying the suit was an interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
- On 8 January 2024, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted restraining Neway from infringing both patents.
Application for Vacation of Injunction
Neway applied under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the injunction.
After hearing both sides, the learned Commercial Court, by impugned order dated 20 August 2025:
| Patent Number | Decision of Commercial Court | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| IN 401417 | Injunction Confirmed | Prima facie infringement found and insufficient credible invalidity challenge |
| IN 298724 | Injunction Vacated | On grounds of arguable invalidity or non-infringement |
Appeals Filed by Parties
- Aggrieved, Neway appealed against the confirmation for IN 401417 (FAO(COMM) 235/2025).
- Mold-Tek appealed against the vacation for IN 298724 (FAO(COMM) 241/2025), along with connected miscellaneous applications.
Reasoning and Decision of Court
Findings on Patent IN 401417
For IN 401417, the Court upheld the Commercial Court’s finding of prima facie infringement, noting that Neway’s product embodied every essential integer of the claimed dual-lock tamper-evident closure system, including the anti-clockwise peel-off ring and gasket arrangement.
- The Court held that the product satisfied the pith-and-marrow doctrine and the doctrine of equivalents.
- On invalidity, the Bench held that Neway failed to discharge its burden under Sections 64/107 by not providing any claim-to-claim comparative analysis or mapping with cited prior art.
- Mere general references to foreign patents without technical dissection were insufficient to create a credible challenge at the interim stage.
- The presumption of validity attached to granted patents prevailed, and the defendant’s unsubstantiated assertions did not tilt the balance against injunction.
Findings on Patent IN 298724
For IN 298724, the Court found the Commercial Court’s vacation erroneous, as Mold-Tek had made out a prima facie case of infringement through detailed claim charts showing substantial embodiment of the tamper-proof lid with integrated spout features.
- The Bench criticized the lower court’s reliance on arguable prior art without requiring the defendant to prima facie substantiate invalidity through cogent evidence.
Final Directions and Outcome
Overall, setting aside the impugned order to the extent it vacated relief for IN 298724, the High Court:
- Restored interim injunctions for both patents pending suit disposal.
- Remanded the invalidity issues for fresh detailed consideration at trial.
- Directed expeditious trial.
The appeals were disposed accordingly, with costs.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
In patent infringement suits, while defendants may raise invalidity grounds under Section 64 as a defense per Section 107 at any stage, including interim injunction proceedings, the burden lies heavily on the defendant to prima facie demonstrate credible invalidity through detailed comparative claim analysis, mapping, and technical evidence vis-à-vis cited prior art.
Requirements for Raising Invalidity as a Defense
Mere general allegations, references to foreign patents without dissection, or lack of claim-to-claim charting are insufficient to rebut the presumption of validity of granted patents or to defeat an interim injunction where prima facie infringement is otherwise established under Section 48.
- Detailed comparative claim analysis is mandatory
- Claim-to-claim mapping with prior art is essential
- Technical evidence must be clearly demonstrated
- General allegations or vague references are inadequate
Tests for Infringement at the Interim Stage
At the interim stage, courts must apply infringement tests such as the pith-and-marrow test and the doctrine of equivalents by comparing essential claim features with the defendant’s product.
Equitable Relief and Grant of Injunction
Equitable relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure favors preserving the status quo through injunction when the balance of convenience and irreparable injury tilt towards the patentee.
- Dilution of patent monopoly
- Loss of market share
- Continuing infringement during trial
Case Details
| Case Title | Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mold-Tek Packaging Limited |
|---|---|
| Date of Order | 28 January 2026 |
| Case Number | FAO(COMM) 235/2025 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:DHC:702-DB |
| Name of Court | High Court of Delhi |
| Name of Hon’ble Judges | Hon’ble Justice Shri C. Hari Shankar & Hon’ble Justice Shri Om Prakash Shukla |
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
