22/01/2024
Plaintiff to approach the Court with ‘clean hands’, Delhi High Court Imposed Rs.5,00,000/- cost on the Plaintiff
The Delhi High Court, in a recent decision dated 14 December 2023, emphasized that those approaching the Court must do so with 'clean hands' while adjudicating an application for an interim injunction in a patent infringement suit between Freebit AS (‘Plaintiff’) and Exotic Mile Private Limited (‘Defendant’). The court dismissed the application, imposing costs of INR 5 lakh on the Plaintiff for failing to disclose the invalidation/refusal of corresponding foreign patents in various jurisdictions.
The patent infringement suit involved the Plaintiff's granted patent (IN 276748) titled 'Improved Earpiece.' The Plaintiff failed to report the revocation of the corresponding European patent and misrepresented the status of other foreign patents in the application. The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction on the first hearing date, claiming royalties from licensees like Boat, JBL, Skullcandy, and Harman.
Defendant argued that the information provided by the Plaintiff regarding corresponding patents was inaccurate and false, citing decisions from the European Patent Office, the UK High Court of Justice, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).
The Court, referring to the High Court of Delhi Rules Governing Patent Suits and the Civil Procedure Code, emphasized the obligation for the Plaintiff to disclose details of corresponding foreign patent applications and any related court orders. The Plaintiff's inaccurate representation of the patent statuses in the suit raised questions about the accuracy of the information.
Relying on precedent cases like Satish Khosla and Arunima Baruah, the Court stressed the importance of approaching the Court with 'clean hands' and the impact of suppressing material facts on the right to equitable relief. The Court found the Plaintiff's failure to disclose revocations or invalidations of corresponding foreign patents as material suppression and misrepresentation of facts.
Analyzing the prerequisites for an interim injunction, the Court noted the absence of a prima facie case due to the patient's susceptibility to revocation. It also highlighted the balance of convenience and potential irreparable injury to the Defendant, leading to a denial of the interim injunction. The Court considered the conduct of the parties, following the Gujarat Bottling decision, and concluded that the Plaintiff was not entitled to any interim injunction.
Despite denying the injunction, the Court allowed the Plaintiff's counsel to verify the Defendant's cited decisions. If the information asserted by the Defendant is found incorrect, the Plaintiff may seek revival of the injunction application.
