Abstract
What are patents?
Patents are a form of Intellectual Property Rights, used to protect an idea or invention.
The Patents Act, 1970
The Patents Act, 1970, provides various legal remedies that a patentee can avail themselves of in the event of a patent infringement case.
Though the Patent infringement has not been defined anywhere in the Act, it provides various remedies to the innovators to prevent any third party from manufacturing or selling the invention that has been patented, one of which is the “Remedy of Injunction.”
Injunction as a Judicial Remedy
An Injunction is one of the most effective judicial remediesavailable to a patentee in cases where his/her patent is infringed.
Under this, the court requires the infringer to do or abstain from doing a particular act or a wrongful act.
When the court grants an injunction, it helps the patentee restore their violated rights.
Empirical and Analytical Focus
Furthermore, this paper delves deeper into the empirical study of injunctions as a remedy for protecting the infringement of the patentee’s innovation.
The author also seeks to elaborate on the question of whether such a remedy is effective or not.
It also analyses the judicial precedents to understand the opinions and the trends of the judiciary in these cases.
Also, injunctions are effective but often distorted by delays.
Literature Review
1. Patent Protection Through Interim Injunctions: Adding Sting to the Enforcement of Indian Patent Law – By Ashutosh Kumar
The article by Ashutosh Kumar reviews how the Indian courts make decisions to provide interim injunctions in patent cases. The author states that the rules currently followed by the courts derive from general civil law, and these are ill-equipped for patent litigation, where issues like protecting innovation and market share are essential.
He suggests that courts should adopt the American Cyanamid approach, which makes it easier for a patentee to get an injunction by setting a lower standard for providing a “prima facie” case. The author criticizes the present system and recommends adjusting the rules for interim injunctions in IP cases to make them more suitable.
2. Critical Analysis of the Practice of Regular Granting of Interim Injunctions – By Rounak Doshi
The article points out that courts in India often grant interim injunctions in IP cases without verifying the validity of the patent. This can sometimes be unfair to the other party, who may be wrongly restrained from using the technology.
The author suggests that:
- Courts should not issue injunctions as a routine step.
- Trials should be completed faster.
- Independent technical experts should be consulted.
- Each case should be carefully examined before granting such orders.
3. Interim Injunction in IPR: An Indian Experience – By Shubham Damani
This article explains how Indian courts have moved away from the old “six-year rule”, which assumed that patents less than six years old were not strong enough to rely on. Now, this idea is mostly abandoned.
Instead, courts continue to depend on the well-known three-part test:
| Test Factor | Description |
|---|---|
| Prima Facie Case | Whether the case presents sufficient merit to justify an injunction. |
| Balance of Convenience | Whether the inconvenience to the patentee outweighs that of the defendant. |
| Irreparable Harm | Whether denial of injunction would cause irreversible damage to the patentee. |
This article highlights the evolution of interim injunction law in India and reaffirms that courts still rely on these three main principles when deciding cases.
4. Importance of Interim Relief in Intellectual Property Litigation and Impact of the Commercial Courts Act – By Tahir Ashraf Siddiqui and Sameer Mishra
The authors explain that interim injunctions in Intellectual Property cases often end up determining the entire dispute due to judicial delays. They emphasize that injunctions are granted based on three rules — prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.
The article notes that:
- Courts mostly provide injunctions in patent cases, with few reaching final trials.
- This trend makes interim orders highly powerful and sometimes unfair.
- Big companies sometimes misuse ex parte injunctions to gain advantage.
It also reviews the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which aimed to expedite IP trials but failed to eliminate delays. The authors conclude that courts must ensure quicker trials to maintain the temporary nature of injunctions.
IV. Research Methodology
This research uses both empirical and legal analysis to assess how effective injunctions are in Indian patent infringement cases.
A. Empirical Study
The empirical study involves examining court orders from various High Courts where interim injunctions were decided. The following factors will be analyzed:
- Whether an injunction was granted or denied.
- Whether it was ex parte or contested.
- Reasons cited by the court.
- Duration of the process.
Data will be collected from official court websites and verified with the Indian Patent Database to identify the type of technology involved. The findings will be used to:
- Identify the frequency of injunctions granted.
- Assess the impact of delays.
- Evaluate whether reforms such as the Commercial Courts Act and IPD Rules have improved their effectiveness.
B. Legal Analysis
The legal analysis covers the following laws and rules:
- Patents Act, 1970
- Civil Procedure Code, 1908
- Specific Relief Act, 1963
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015
- Delhi High Court IPD Rules, 2022
V. Introduction
Intellectual Property (IP) represents the creations of the human mind, including inventions, literary and artistic works, symbols, names, and images. These rights are protected by law through mechanisms such as Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, enabling creators to safeguard their innovations and benefit financially.
A. Definition and Importance of Patents
A Patent is an exclusive right granted by the government to an inventor for a limited period to make, use, or sell an invention. It benefits:
- Inventors: By providing legal protection for their innovations.
- Society: By encouraging transparency and further technological advancement.
B. Injunctions as a Remedy
Protection of inventions is essential, and every patentee can seek remedies to prevent misuse by others. One of the most beneficial remedies is an injunction.
C. Meaning and Types of Injunctions
An injunction is “a judicial warning or a judicial order restraining a person from an action or compelling a person to carry out a certain act.” It may be classified as:
| Type of Injunction | Description |
|---|---|
| Temporary Injunction | A court order issued during the pendency of a case; remains in effect until the court’s final decision or further order. |
| Permanent Injunction | A final order issued after the decree of the suit, restraining a party indefinitely from performing the act complained of. |
D. Issues with Temporary/Interim Injunctions
Temporary injunctions are discretionary in nature. Data from 2005 to 2015 reveals that out of 143 cases, only 5 reached the final stage, while the rest remained pending.
For example, in Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Co. Ltd., the court directed that IP trials should conclude within four months, but such timelines are rarely observed.
This raises a critical debate on whether interim injunctions truly maintain the balance of justice or contribute to procedural delays. Empirical data suggests that interim injunctions are granted in approximately 60–61% of patent infringement applications in India.
E. Central Research Question
Are injunctions in Indian patent infringement cases an effective and equitable remedy, or do they distort the balance of justice by delaying trials and creating unfair market advantages?
Legal Framework for Injunctions Under Patent Laws
Injunctions are the most effective remedy to restrain infringement and secure the patentee’s exclusive rights. It is said to be an equitable relief and therefore governed in India by general and civil law provisions as well as the specific framework provided under the intellectual property legislations.
The legal framework regulating injunctions in patent matters thus involves a mixture of statutes, judicial discretion, and equitable principles. It is the most effective remedy due to the following reasons:
- Enforce the “Right to Exclude”: Patent rights mainly are the exclusive rights of the owner and prevent others from using the patented invention. The remedy of an injunction directly enforces this exclusionary right, whereas monetary remedies merely compensate after a wrongful act has been committed.
- Prevent Irreparable Harm: Patents protect future market opportunities, brand identity, and technological exclusivity. These are intangible and cannot be quantified. If someone infringes a patent, awarding monetary damages later only compensates for losses already incurred. An injunction stops the infringement immediately, preventing further harm and protecting these valuable but unquantifiable assets that damages alone cannot fully cover.
A. Statutory Basis for Injunction
Various statutes discuss injunctions in India. The key ones include:
| Statute | Relevant Provisions | Key Points |
|---|---|---|
| Specific Relief Act, 1963 | Sections 30, 37, 40 |
|
| Civil Procedure Code, 1908 | Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, Section 94 |
|
| The Patents Act, 1970 | Section 108(1) |
|
General Principles for Grant or Denial of Injunctions
The principles used by courts before granting an injunction in a patent case originated from English law in American Cyanamid vs. Ethicon Ltd, but Indian courts apply them with more strictness.
1. Prima Facie Case
The patentee must show that there is a genuine claim on the merits. At this stage, the court does not conclusively determine facts but assesses whether the claim lacks merit. Courts also examine whether the defendant has raised a credible challenge to the validity of the patent in question.
1.1 Six-Year Rule
This rule originated in Manicka Thevar v. Star Ploughs (Madras HC, 1965), where patents less than six years old were presumed unreliable, and interim injunctions were often denied. The rule, followed in later cases such as NRDC v. DCM (1980), Standipack (2000), and Bilcare (2007), was criticized for lacking statutory basis. It was finally rejected in Roche v. Cipla (Delhi HC, 2008) and subsequent rulings, which clarified that patent validity must be judged on merits, not age.
2. Balance of Convenience and Public Interest
This condition requires the court to assess whether the balance of convenience favors the plaintiff. Courts compare potential harm to both parties if the injunction is granted or denied. In India, public interest is often considered alongside or separately—especially in matters like access to life-saving medicines. For instance, during COVID-19, affordability of anti-diabetic drugs was deemed relevant since diabetes heightened infection risks.
3. Irreparable Injury
This principle applies when the patentee has no adequate remedy other than an injunction. It does not mean the harm must be physically irreparable—only that monetary compensation is insufficient to restore the patentee’s position.
Ex-Parte Injunction
Generally, the court must notify the opposite party before granting an injunction. However, in urgent situations where delay defeats the injunction’s purpose, an ex parte injunction may be issued. The court must record written reasons stating why delay would frustrate justice. Under Rule 3 of Order 39, such applications must be disposed of within 30 days.
VII. Empirical Analysis of Injunction Cases
An interim injunction is intended to provide immediate relief to patentees facing infringement. It mainly prevents ongoing violations, protects market shares, and secures intangible assets like technological exclusivity and brand reputation.
However, this remedy is not granted automatically. Courts, after analyzing facts and evidence, balance patent rights, public interest, and fair competition principles to ensure justice.
Historical Cases on Patent Injunctions
1. M/S Standipack Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (2000)
The plaintiff filed an injunction application for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing or using the patented pouch of the plaintiff. The plaintiff stated that a patent was granted for a pouch used to store and dispense liquids such as lubricating oil by the Controller of Patents. The plaintiff also had patents in the USA, Europe, and Australia.
Later, the plaintiff found that the defendants had started selling pouches made in the same oblique design as his patented ones, thereby violating the plaintiff’s patent rights. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking an infringement claim and both permanent and temporary injunctions.
The Delhi High Court denied the interim injunction, stating that the petitioner (Standipack) had failed to establish a credible prima facie case and had suppressed relevant facts, compromising equitable relief.
- Indian courts will refuse injunctions where plaintiffs lack a strong prima facie case.
- This case established that injunctions are equitable remedies subject to procedural and ethical scrutiny.
- Injunctions can be denied to prevent unfair advantages by patentees.
2. F. Hofmann-La Roche Ltd. & Anr. vs. Cipla Ltd. (2015 SCC OnLine Del 14738)
This case involved the patented cancer drug Erlotinib Hydrochloride (sold as Tarceva) and Cipla’s generic version, Erlocip. The issue before the Delhi High Court was whether Cipla’s product infringed Roche’s patent and whether Roche should be granted an injunction.
The court held that although Cipla infringed Roche’s patent, the injunction was denied on public interest grounds. The court emphasized affordable access to life-saving medicines.
- The court did not halt Cipla’s sales but ordered it to account for profits.
- Roche received monetary relief, and patients continued to access affordable drugs.
- This case set a precedent that injunctions in patent cases are not automatic and must balance patent rights and public welfare.
3. Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs. TVS Motor Company Ltd. (2010 SCC OnLine Mad 5031)
Bajaj sued TVS for allegedly infringing its patent for Digital Twin Spark Ignition Technology used in the TVS 125cc Flame motorcycle. Bajaj initially obtained a temporary injunction restricting TVS from manufacturing or selling the Flame, but this was later repealed.
The court found both parties’ engine technologies to be distinct and eligible for patent protection. Thus, Bajaj did not have a clear prima facie case of infringement.
- The court refused further relief of injunction.
- This case settled that injunctions are not always equitable as they may delay trials and hinder legitimate competition.
4. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals (2015 SCC OnLine Mad 8227)
Merck filed a suit in the Delhi High Court claiming that Glenmark’s generic drugs containing Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate infringed its patent for Sitagliptin (marketed as Januvia and Janumet).
Glenmark argued that its product used a different salt—phosphate monohydrate—which Merck had not patented. However, the court ruled that Merck’s patent covered Sitagliptin and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts.
Merck’s interim injunction was denied initially but, after trial and appeal, the court upheld the patent’s validity and granted a permanent injunction against Glenmark.
- The case highlighted judicial scrutiny balancing patent rights and public interest.
- Injunctions are granted when supported by strong evidence and equity considerations.
5. Novartis AG & Anr. vs. Cipla Ltd. (2015 SCC OnLine Mad 6430)
Known as the Onbrez Case, this dispute involved Novartis’s patented drug Indacaterol (used for COPD) and Cipla’s generic version Unibrez.
Novartis sued Cipla for patent infringement and sought an injunction. Although the court initially stopped Cipla temporarily, Cipla argued that Novartis was not supplying enough of the drug in India and that its cheaper version was essential for patients.
After reviewing the evidence, the court held that Novartis’s patent was valid and that Cipla’s drug infringed upon it. The court granted a permanent injunction stopping Cipla from selling Unibrez.
- Indian courts weigh affordability and public interest before granting injunctions.
- Injunctions serve as a balanced remedy, protecting innovation without compromising accessibility.
6. Vifor International Ltd. & Anr. vs. Biological E. Ltd. & Anr. (2023 SCC OnLine Del 5898)
This case in the Delhi High Court involved Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM), used to treat iron deficiency anemia. Vifor alleged that Biological E used its patented process, while Biological E claimed to use a different one.
The court denied Vifor’s request for an interim injunction as the case involved a product-by-process patent requiring deeper technical evaluation. However, the court directed Biological E not to use Vifor’s exact patented process and to maintain production and sales records.
- Indian courts do not automatically grant injunctions; they assess fairness and competition.
- Injunctions are granted when strong proof of infringement exists.
- This case highlights the court’s cautious approach in balancing patent protection with market fairness.
Recent Patent Injunction Cases in India
1. F. Hofmann-La Roche Ltd. & Anr. vs. Natco Pharma Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1826
In this case, the Delhi High Court refused an interim injunction against Natco’s generic Risdiplam, a drug used to treat spinal muscular atrophy. The court cited doubts about the patent’s validity and Roche’s contradictory positions about the same claim in foreign countries. The court also emphasised public interest, as Natco’s drug would be 80 to 90% more affordable, while Roche could still claim damages.
This case shows that Indian courts grant injunctions very carefully, balancing protection of genuine innovation with access to essential medicines.
2. Conqueror Innovations Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Xiaomi India Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4681
Conqueror alleged that Xiaomi’s “Find Device” feature infringed its 2010 patent on a communication device finder system addressing anti-theft weaknesses. The patent included features like auto-answer mode and auto-reinstallation, which the patent holder claimed were copied.
The Delhi High Court denied the interim injunction, finding no prima facie infringement as Xiaomi’s system lacked key patented features. The court held that damages would be adequate if infringement were later proven and favoured Xiaomi on the balance of convenience.
The case shows that Indian courts grant injunctions cautiously, requiring clear infringement, timely litigation, and active patent use. Injunctions aim to protect genuine innovation while preventing unfair market competition and ensuring fairness.
3. Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. vs. Safex Chemicals India Ltd. & Others, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2981
Crystal Crop alleged that Safex’s weedicidal products infringed its patent for a formulation containing Clodinafop-propargyl 9%, Metribuzin 20%, a safener, a surfactant, and a dying agent. Safex’s product lacked the dying agent, which Crystal Crop claimed was essential.
The Delhi High Court denied the interim injunction, stating that the dying agent was an essential component absent in Safex’s products, and that the doctrine of equivalence could not cover this omission. The court found no irreparable harm and noted that damages would be a sufficient remedy.
This case shows that the Indian court grants an interim injunction cautiously, strictly interpreting patent claims and considering prosecution history. Injunctions are granted only when essential elements are infringed, balancing patent protection with commercial fairness.
4. Jay Switches India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sandhar Technologies Ltd. & Other, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8434
Jay Switches, the plaintiff, claimed that Sandhar’s “Air-tight Fuel Cap” infringed its patent features such as the main circular plate and engagement projections. The court denied the interim injunction, finding no infringement as Sandhar’s product did not meet the critical patent features.
The court stressed claim clarity and prosecution history, rejected post-grant amendments, and held that damages would be sufficient since there was no irreparable harm.
The case highlights that Indian courts grant injunctions cautiously, requiring clear infringement and irreparable harm. Courts aim to protect patent rights without creating unfair market advantages, maintaining fairness and competition.
Statistical Overview of Patent Injunctions in India
Recent data shows that Indian courts grant an interim injunction in about 60–61% of patent enforcement cases.
| Year/Period | Total Patent Suits | Injunctions Granted | Success Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 47 | 29 | ~61% |
| 2000–2016 | 59 | 36 | ~60% |
However, these injunctions often do not lead to quick resolutions. A study found that between 2005 and 2015, out of 143 patent cases, only five received final judgments. The remaining cases remained pending for years.
- Interim injunctions are commonly granted but final judgments are significantly delayed.
- Such delays turn temporary protections into long-term market barriers.
- This pattern shows a need for faster adjudication to balance patent protection and fair competition.
Observation & Trends
- An interim injunction can immediately prevent patent infringement and protect the patentee’s intangible rights, including market share, brand identity, and technological exclusivity.
- An injunction is not granted to patentees as a routine remedy. Courts investigate the standards first, which include:
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable harm
- Public interest
- In cases involving life-saving drugs and essential technology, public welfare often outweighs the patentee’s exclusive rights.
- Procedure and ethical compliance by the patentees are of utmost importance.
- Interim injunctions often end up being a de facto final relief due to prolonged delays in trials. This means that the temporary relief sought by the plaintiff turns into a long-lasting restriction for the other party, distorting market competition.
Suggestions / Recommendations
- Courts should complete patent trials within fixed timelines so that temporary injunctions do not drag on for years.
- Since patent cases are highly technical, there is a need for independent experts to assist judges in evaluating the strength of the case before granting an injunction.
- Courts should exercise strict discretion while granting ex parte injunctions to prevent misuse by large corporations.
- In cases involving medicines and essential technology patents, courts should balance patentee rights with public welfare and affordability without hesitation.
Conclusion
Injunctions are among the strongest remedies in patent law because they can stop infringement immediately and protect the patentees’ rights. However, from the cases studied, it is evident that injunctions in India are neither fair nor automatic. Courts carefully evaluate whether there exists a strong prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience favors the patentee, and whether public interest is affected.
At the same time, delays in trials often cause temporary injunctions to last for many years, which was never the intended purpose of such relief. This harms competition and grants patentees an unfair advantage. The cases examined show that courts strive to balance patent rights with public health and affordability, and sometimes deny injunctions when patents lack transparency.
It can be concluded that the effectiveness of injunctions depends on how carefully courts apply them. They work best when granted after proper scrutiny and within a speedy trial framework. Reforms such as faster case timelines, expert involvement, and stricter rules for ex parte orders can make injunctions both effective in protecting innovation and fair for society at large.
