High Court Case No. 343 of 2022 - Dispute Concerning Intellectual Property between Supreme Industries
A Chat about a Legal Battle
In the bustling realm of commerce, a patent infringement case between Supreme Industries Limited, the plaintiff, and Tandhan Polyplast Private Limited, the defendant, is underway. De Penning & De Penning stepped in to assist Supreme Industries in an application lodged by the defendant to overturn an ex-parte ad-interim order from October 7, 2022.
The defendant, in their application, argued two primary points:
- Supreme Industries had concealed essential truths under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, leading to deception and misleading the court. They contended that the case couldn't proceed without the defendant, as they had already been informed, and that the plaintiff failed to disclose another ongoing suit involving limited ad-interim relief.
- The exclusivity claimed by Supreme Industries was questionable, as the evidence showed their product was similar, not identical, to that of the defendant.
But did the plaintiff, in fact, deceive the court? Let's dive into the court's observations.
Firstly, the court uncovered that the plaintiff had indeed sent the defendant a notice in accordance with the Bombay High Court's practice note. The court also noted that the case couldn't be heard due to time constraints, leading to multiple adjournments. The defendant had made representations, but when the case was finally heard on October 7, their advocates were nowhere to be found.
Secondly, the court questioned the connection between the other suit and the current case. The limited ad-interim relief in the other suit concerned copyright infringement, not patent infringement. Hence, there was no information hidden from the court.
In the end, the court found no evidence supporting the defendant's allegations of falsification and suppression of vital information.
As for the plaintiff's exclusivity, the court examined the product and process patents and agreed with Supreme Industries that the terms 'similar' and 'identical' can sometimes be used interchangeably.
By analyzing the case closely, the court decided that there was enough evidence to maintain the ad-interim reliefs, dismissing the defendant's application to vacate the October 7 order.
In essence, the defendant's attempt to overturn the ex-parte ad-interim order was unsuccessful. Supreme Industries' intellectual property rights remain protected pending the resolution of the entire case. If you need more specific details, such as judges' remarks or legal reasoning, just let me know!
The plaintiff, Supreme Industries, managed to maintain the financial support of their intellectual property rights, as the court dismissed the defendant's application to vacate the October 7 order, following the examination of the case's merits. It was observed that the defendant, Tandhan Polyplast, failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that Supreme Industries had violated their copyright rights or suppressed crucial information during the course of the legal proceedings.
