loader image

Ongoing IP Infringement Justifies Urgency and Exemption from Pre-Litigation Mediation; SC Restores Novenco’s Patent Suit to Docket

Ongoing IP Infringement Justifies Urgency and Exemption from Pre-Litigation Mediation; SC Restores Novenco’s Patent Suit to Docket

Novenco Building and Industry A/S vs Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. [Order dated 27 October 2025]

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed Novenco’s appeal, set aside both High Court orders that had dismissed Novenco’s patent infringement suit for want of pre-institution mediation, and restored the suit for trial. The Court held that ongoing patent/design infringement, even with delay, constitutes sufficient urgency to bypass Section 12A mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Novenco, a Danish manufacturer of industrial fans, sued Xero Energy and an affiliate in the Himachal Pradesh High Court for infringing its “ZerAx” fan design and patents. Novenco sought interim injunctive relief and exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A, claiming ongoing and irreparable injury from persistent IP infringement.

The trial court, and then the Himachal Pradesh High Court, found no sufficient urgency and rejected the plaint for non-compliance with the mandatory mediation requirement. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, facilitated mediation, but this failed.

Novenco argued that continuous infringement justifies urgency, while opposing counsel argued there was no immediate peril and the mediation requirement must be enforced strictly unless “genuine” urgency is pleaded.

The Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe clarified that urgency should be assessed from the standpoint of the plaintiff and the facts, not simply the passage of time. The Court clarified that continuing IP infringement creates recurring causes of action and is inherently urgent.

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of both the trial and appellate division of the High Court, restored Novenco’s suit to the docket, and directed it to proceed on merits. The appeal was allowed, with directions to proceed expeditiously on the injunction application.


Cases relied on:

1. Dhanbad Fuels (P) Ltd. v. UoI, (2025) SCC Online SC 1129

2. Midas Hygiene Industries Private Ltd. and Anr. v. Sudhir Bhatia and Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 90

Cases referred to:

1. Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1

2. Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815

PDF Icon

Novenco Building and Industry A/S vs Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Preview PDF