Introduction
This appeal before the Delhi High Court challenged an interim injunction granted by a single judge, restraining Canva from using its “Present and Record” feature in India on the grounds that it infringed RxPrism’s Indian Patent No. 360726.
The patent, titled “A system and a method for creating and sharing interactive content rapidly anywhere and anytime,” protects a technology enabling users to generate layered, interactive content with synchronized media elements, such as background slides and foreground video overlays, along with configurable call-to-action components.
The division bench examined principles of claim construction, the doctrine of equivalents, and validity challenges, ultimately affirming the single judge’s decision.
Factual Background
RxPrism Health Systems Private Limited, an Indian startup incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, specializes in technology solutions for social selling and digital customer engagement.
In December 2018, RxPrism filed a patent application for a system that allows users to create and share interactive multimedia content swiftly across devices.
Core Technology Features
- A computing device with processor, memory, display, camera, microphone, and media library.
- Users present first media such as images or slides as background.
- Users record second media such as audio or video as a movable foreground overlay.
- An authoring module facilitates recording and configuration.
- A player module enables viewers to interact with the content.
Interactive Capabilities
- Pausing content.
- Navigating slides.
- Jumping timelines for a non-linear experience.
The content is stored as a network resource accessible via URL.
This technology was commercialized through RxPrism’s “My Show & Tell” product launched in May 2020, targeting sales, education, and corporate sectors.
The patent was granted on March 10, 2021, as Indian Patent No. 360726.
Canva And The “Present And Record” Feature
Canva Pty Ltd, an Australian company, operates a global online design platform.
On August 27, 2020, Canva introduced the “Present and Record” feature, allowing users to record themselves presenting slides, generating synchronized composites popular during the pandemic for remote communications.
RxPrism discovered this feature in June 2021, conducted a technical analysis, and concluded it replicated the patented layered architecture, synchronization, and interactive elements.
Pre-Litigation Communications
| Period | Events |
|---|---|
| June – September 2021 | RxPrism shared patent details, claim mappings, and offered a license. Canva continued usage without agreement. |
RxPrism viewed amicable resolution as unfeasible.
Procedural Background
RxPrism initiated a commercial suit, CS (COMM) 573/2021, before the Delhi High Court, seeking permanent injunction against Canva for infringing Patent No. 360726 through the “Present and Record” feature, alleging violation of Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.
An interim application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC sought urgent relief.
RxPrism argued its product embodied the patent, distinguishing it from prior art, which lacked layered interactivity and configurable elements.
Canva’s Defense
- The suit was premature as the post-grant opposition period under Section 25(2) was unexpired.
- No infringement due to absence of three-layer architecture or essential features.
- Validity challenged on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
- Reliance on prior art mosaicing.
Single Judge’s Interim Order
The single judge, after hearings and demonstrations, granted interim injunction on July 18, 2023, finding prima facie infringement.
Directions Issued
- Canva to cease the feature in India.
- Deposit Rs. 50 lakhs as security based on usage data up to June 30, 2022.
- Pay Rs. 5 lakhs costs.
The court noted Canva’s lack of Indian assets and language in pleadings.
Appeal And Final Judgment
Aggrieved, Canva appealed under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, as FAO(OS) (COMM) 211/2023.
Grounds Of Appeal
- Errors in claim construction.
- Errors in infringement analysis.
- Improper application of doctrine of equivalents.
- Errors in validity assessment.
- Reliance on Canva’s PCT application.
The division bench reserved judgment on December 1, 2025, and pronounced it on January 28, 2026.
Reasoning and Decision of Court
The division bench commenced by reiterating the limited scope of appellate interference in interlocutory orders under Order XXXIX CPC, as per Wander Ltd. v. Dexo Laboratories, confining review to arbitrariness, perversity, or contravention of settled principles rather than reappreciating evidence. It recapitulated patent infringement tests from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., emphasizing two-stage analysis: claim construction as a legal exercise, reading specifications holistically to ascertain scope without extraneous limitations, followed by comparison with the accused product.
Claims define monopoly, construed purposively from the skilled person’s perspective, ensuring consistency for validity and infringement. The court affirmed the doctrine of equivalents from FMC Corporation v. Vovantis Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd., preventing evasion through minor variations, applying “function-way-result” for products but “essential element test” for processes, comparing elements, steps, and interactions.
Application of Doctrine of Equivalents
Applying this, the bench found the single judge correctly identified seven inventive steps from Claims 1 and 39, with Canva admitting three, and properly mapped the disputed four:
- Layered presentation retaining interactivity
- Modifiable layers without re-recording
- Configuration interface for editing stored content
- Rendering CTAs during playback
It rejected Canva’s arguments of product-to-product comparison, noting the judgment’s claim-centric focus, and upheld equivalence application, deeming absences like movability or sandwiched layers inessential variations.
Validity and Prior Art
On validity, the bench dismissed anticipation pleas, finding the single judge compared prior art with claims, implicitly treating layering and configurability as inventive over non-merged, non-interactive systems. It corrected minor factual errors on Canva’s PCT application but upheld its evidentiary reliance as corroborating imitation without substituting infringement analysis.
Balancing of Equities
Balancing equities, the court noted RxPrism’s startup status, patent commercialization, and irreparable harm from unlicensed use, against Canva’s global operations and low Indian revenue from the feature, affirming the injunction and deposit as proportionate security. Dismissing the appeal, the bench clarified observations as prima facie, not binding at trial.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
This judgment reinforces that in patent infringement suits involving software features, claim construction must be purposive, holistic, and claim-centric, drawing from specifications without importing unclaimed limitations, ensuring uniform scope for validity and infringement analyses.
It clarifies the doctrine of equivalents’ application to process patents through an “essential element test,” evaluating substantial identity in elements, steps, and interactions rather than mechanical “function-way-result” triple test, allowing injunctions where variations are minor, inessential, or camouflaging.
The decision emphasizes structured prior art comparisons with asserted claims, not commercial embodiments, rejecting mosaicing and upholding prima facie validity absent credible challenges. It affirms appellate restraint in interlocutory appeals, interfering only for perversity or principle errors, and validates securing foreign defendants via deposits based on usage data when no local assets exist, balancing irreparable harm to patentees against minimal prejudice to infringers with alternative revenues.
Case Details
| Case Title | Canva Pty Ltd & Ors. Vs. RxPrism Health Systems Private Limited & Anr. |
|---|---|
| Date of Order | 28.01.2026 |
| Case Number | FAO(OS) (COMM) 211/2023 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:DHC:659 |
| Name of Court | High Court of Delhi at New Delhi |
| Name of Hon’ble Judge | Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice 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
