Temporary Injunction Cases

First Publication Date: 15th January 2010

The Appellant, Jayasingh, acquired a patent over a Prosthesis made of Titanium alloy, which is used in bone salvage surgery. On learning that the Respondents were making, selling, distributing and using Prosthesis that was covered by his patent, Jayasingh filed an infringement suit against the Respondents and prayed for an injunction during the pendency of the suit. After hearing the parties and reviewing the facts on record, the Court refused to grant temporary injunction to Jayasingh.

The Court stated that the ‘Hinge Knee Prosthesis’ of the Respondents was different from the Prosthesis claimed by Jayasingh because it did not have the polymer, rotating hinge mechanism, extending mechanism and so on that were present in the patented Prosthesis. Therefore, the Court pointed out that the Prosthesis of the Respondent was not prima facie similar or deceptively similar to that of the Appellant. The Court further observed that mere functional similarity of the products of the patent holder and the alleged infringer would not warrant the grant of a temporary injunction.

Considering the relevance of prosthesis to those who are in need of the same as a life saving equipment, its cost effectiveness and the functional advantage of a customised titanium prosthesis made and used by the Respondents, the Court stated that the balance of convenience was not in favour of Jayasingh. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that there was no proof of loss that would be suffered by Jayasingh if the injunction was not granted. Based on its analysis, the Court rejected the temporary injunction to Jayasingh and ordered the trial court to complete the infringement proceedings within four (4) months.

The case related to a patent involving an invention concerning safety intravenous catheters or cannulae held by the Appellant, Braun Melsungen AG. The Appellants filed a patent infringement suit against Respondents, who were contract manufacturers of the Appellants alleging that the Respondent’s safety catheter infringes the patented catheter. The Appellants applied for an interim injunction during the pendency of the suit.

After examining the arguments of the parties, the Court held that the Appellants were not eligible for an interim injunction because they did not have a prima facie case. The Court stated that the Appellants did not have a prima facie case because the patent was a recent one and because there was a serious challenge to its validity. It stated that the validity of the patent was prima facie questionable because the field of the patent was a crowded one, safety catheters were being used for a long time and because there were close prior art patents relating to the safety catheters. After comparing the Appellants catheter to the Respondents’ catheter, the Court observed that they were prima facie different from each other. The Court further pointed out that the Appellants did not approach the Court with clean hands because they withheld important facts in the application for injunction. As the Appellants could not show prima facie case and approached the Court with unclean hands, the Court denied the temporary injunction to the Appellants. However, the Court directed the defendants to keep accounts of the manufacture and sales of the safety intravenous cannula in question during the pendency of the suit and to make the same available to the Court as and when directed by it.