The Delhi High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction to Amitoje India Pvt. Ltd., which alleged infringement of its patent relating to a foldable product display unit, holding that the defendant had raised a credible challenge to the validity of the suit patent under Section 64 (1)(f) of the Patent Act, 1970.
Justice Mini Pushkarna, while deciding the interim injunction application, observed that “there is no presumption in favour of the validity of a patent” and if a credible challenge is raised or the suit patent is vulnerable, “then no interim injunction can be granted in favour of the plaintiffs.”
The case stemmed from a suit filed by Amitoje India Pvt. Ltd. and its proprietor, who are the patentees of the Indian Patent titled “A Foldable Product Display Unit”. The plaintiffs alleged that Classic Display Systems Pvt. Ltd. was manufacturing and supplying foldable display units that infringed their patented invention, including products supplied to the oral care brand, Perfora.
Opposing the injunction, the defendant raised multiple challenges to the suit patent, including lack of novelty, obviousness, prior use, and a prior published US patent. The Court held that even an abandoned but published patent document qualifies as prior art, and can be relied upon to test obviousness under Section 64(1)(f) of the Patents Act.
The High Court did not accept the defendant’s claim of prior use at face value, but held that it have to be proved by way of leading evidence at the time of trial. Justice Mini Pushkarna clarified that prior use in patent law is fundamentally different from prior use in trademark law, and cannot be established merely through commercial documents such as invoices, emails, PPTs, or photographs.
Applying the five-step test for obviousness laid down in F. Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13619, the Court noted that foldable display units were already known in the market and that the alleged inventive features appeared, prima facie, to be a combination or rearrangement of existing elements, making the patent vulnerable to an obviousness challenge.
Accordingly, holding that the defendant had raised a substantial and credible challenge to the suit patent, the Court declined to grant interim injunction, leaving all issues open to be decided after trial. The matter is listed before the Roster Bench on January 16, 2026.
Appearances
Plaintiffs- Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, Mr. Tarun Khurana, Ms. Meenakshi Ogra, Mr. Rajat Sabu, Mr. Samrat S. Kang, Mr. Parth Singh, Mr. Ritvik Jha, Ms. Divyanshi Bansal, Advocates
Defendant- Mr. Deepak Jain, Ms. Jaspreet Aulakh, Ms. Anoushka Singh, Ms. Dashampreet Kaur, Mr. Sajal Gupta, Mr. Arsh Raina and Mr. Devender Chauhan, Advs.
