Delhi High Court Restores Interim Injunction In Favour Of Mold-Tek Packaging; Remands Patent Validity Issue For Fresh Consideration

The Court clarified that once a prima facie case of patent infringement is established, the burden of raising a credible challenge to patent validity under Section 107 of the Patents Act, 1970 lies on the defendant, and cannot be shifted onto the patentee. The Bench held that a trial court cannot reverse this statutory burden by requiring the plaintiff to prove that its patent is not generic, anticipated, or obvious.

Facts of the Case

Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd. is the registered proprietor of two patents:

• IN 401417 — Tamper-Evident Leak Proof Pail Closure System
• IN 298724 — Tamper-Proof Lid Having Spout for Containers and Process for Its Manufacture

Alleging infringement by Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mold-Tek instituted a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction. By an ex parte ad interim order dated 8 January 2024, the Commercial Court restrained Neway from infringing both patents.

Subsequently, by an order dated 20 August 2025, the Commercial Court:

• confirmed the injunction in respect of Patent IN'417, and
• vacated the injunction in respect of Patent IN'724, holding that the patent lacked novelty and inventive step.

Aggrieved, both parties preferred cross-appeals before the Delhi High Court.

Findings on Patent IN'417

Dismissing Neway's appeal, the Division Bench upheld the injunction in respect of Patent IN'417. The Court noted that Neway had failed to raise any credible challenge to validity under Section 107 read with Section 64 of the Patents Act. It observed that mere allegations of anticipation and obviousness, without claim-to-claim comparison with specific prior art, cannot survive in law.

Justice C. Hari Shankar observed:

“The purpose of filing written submissions is to enable counsel to identify the issues which are urged and asserted during arguments. An appellate court would examine the correctness of the order only with respect to the issues actually argued before the court passing the order.”

The Bench reiterated that claim mapping is a necessary element of any patent infringement suit, and found no infirmity in the Commercial Court's conclusion on infringement of Patent IN'417.

Findings on Patent IN'298724

With respect to Patent IN'724, the High Court upheld the finding of infringement, noting that Neway had neither filed a cross-appeal nor a cross-objection on that aspect.

However, the Court set aside the Commercial Court's findings on invalidity, holding that:

• findings of lack of novelty and obviousness were returned without reference to any specific prior art;
• the trial court relied on perceived similarities, which is impermissible under settled patent jurisprudence; and
• the trial court had erroneously reversed the statutory burden of proof, placing it on the plaintiff instead of the defendant.

The Bench clarified that once infringement is prima facie established, the defendant must demonstrate a credible challenge to validity, and not vice versa. Accordingly, the issue of invalidity of Patent IN'724 was remanded for de novo consideration by the Commercial Court.

Decision

The High Court held that setting aside the impugned order would ipso facto revive the ex parte ad interim injunction dated 8 January 2024, which shall continue until a fresh decision is taken by the Commercial Court.

The parties were directed to appear before the Commercial Court on 17 February 2026 for expeditious hearing.

Case Title: NEWAY INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v. MOLD‑TEK PACKAGING LIMITED” (FAO (COMM) 235/2025 With MOLD-TEK PACKAGING LIMITED Vs NEWAY INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ( FAO (COMM) 241/2025 )

Counsel for Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd; Mr. Vikas Khera, Ms. Sneha Sethia and Mr. Rohit, Advs.

Counsel for Mold Tek Packaging Ltd : Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Ms. Radhika Pareva, Mr. Adithya B., Mr. Yagya Passi, Mr. Ayush Sharma and Mr. Om, Advs.

Click Here To Read/Download Order