Delhi High Court Stays Order Against Indian Firm Making Irrigation Valves In Patent Dispute With Israel Company

A Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla pronounced the judgment on January 5, 2026, while deciding an appeal filed by Automat Irrigation.

Staying the earlier order dated August 1, 2025 on a interim plea filed by Aquestia Limited, the bench said it prima facie suffered from serious errors in claim construction and infringement analysis.

The court noted that, “the impugned order of the learned Single Judge suffers from a basic misunderstanding of the nature of the invention forming subject matter of the suit patent and the manner in which the product of the appellants are fundamentally different from the subject matter of the suit patent.”

The dispute arises from a suit filed by Aquestia Limited alleging infringement of its patent relating to FCV technology. The Single Judge had held that the Hydromat Valve manufactured by Automat Irrigation infringed Claim 1 of Aquestia's patent and had granted interim relief in its favour. Aggrieved by this order, Automat Irrigation approached the High Court in appeal.

Before the Division Bench, Automat submitted that the Single Judge had examined only a limited part of the patent claim while assessing infringement. The court noted the settled position, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., that appellate courts ordinarily do not interfere with discretionary interim orders, especially in intellectual property matters.

It clarified, however, that such restraint does not apply where discretion is exercised on an incorrect understanding of the law.

Applying that principle, the bench found fault with the approach adopted in the impugned order. It observed that the Single Judge had confined the infringement analysis to the portion of Claim 1 following the words “characterized in that.” The court explained that Indian patent law does not accord any special status to that part of a claim and requires claims to be construed as a whole, in light of the complete specification.

The court explained that Indian patent law does not accord any special or elevated status to the “characterized” portion of a claim and that claims must be construed holistically in light of the complete specifications.

Holding that there is no provision under Indian law governing patent claims analysis based on 'characterized' portion of claims, the court observed, “The impugned judgment, for this, relies on an earlier judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Guala Closures which, in turn, relies on the judgment of the UK Court of Appeal in Virgin Atlantic Airways which, in turn, is based on Regulation 29(1) of the UK Implementing Regulations, to which there is no parallel in India's statutory patent regime.”

The Division Bench further found that the Single Judge had failed to consider crucial distinguishing features between the two technologies, particularly the differences in the manner in which fluid flow is regulated in respective products.

In view of these prima facie errors in the application of law and appreciation of facts, the Court held that the disputed order warranted a stay.

Accordingly, the Court stayed the operation of the Single Judge's order until the next date of hearing and issued notice in the appeal.

The matter will next be listed on February 9, 2026.

Case Title: Automat Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. And Ors v. Aquestia Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 12

Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 123/2025

For Appellants: Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak with Advocates Avinash Sharma, Somya Chaturvedi, Shrey Sharma and Shreesh Chadha

For Respondents: Advocates Pravin Anand, Vaishali Mittal, Siddhant Chamola and Gursimran Singh Narula

Click Here To Read/Download Order