Patent assignment and interim injunction principles support suit maintainability and protection against continuing infringement.
An assignee under a patent assignment deed may maintain a suit once the assignment is executed, because registration under the Patents Act, 1970 operates retrospectively from the date of execution and does not defeat locus standi. In patent infringement matters, interim relief is assessed on prima facie validity, infringement, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. On the stated facts, the patent had been worked, the correspondence suggested the defendants had sought a licence and acknowledged the invention, and the materials supported a prima facie case of validity and infringement. The analysis therefore supports temporary injunctive protection where continued infringement would cause harm not adequately compensated by damages.
Issues: (i) whether the plaintiff, as assignee under the deed of assignment, had locus standi to sue before registration of its title and assignment in the Patent Office; (ii) whether a temporary injunction should be granted in a patent infringement action on the basis of prima facie validity, infringement, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff, as assignee under the deed of assignment, had locus standi to sue before registration of its title and assignment in the Patent Office.
Analysis: The assignment deed had been executed before the suit and, when registered, operated from the date of execution. The statutory scheme under the Patents Act, 1970 made the registration effective retrospectively from execution, unlike the earlier 1911 regime. On that basis, the plaintiff acquired rights under the assignment deed and the earlier non-registration objection did not defeat its capacity to sue.
Conclusion: The plaintiff had locus standi to maintain the suit.
Issue (ii): Whether a temporary injunction should be granted in a patent infringement action on the basis of prima facie validity, infringement, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
Analysis: For interim protection in patent matters, the relevant considerations were a prima facie case, patent validity, infringement, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The patent was of some standing, had been worked, and the correspondence showed that the defendants had sought a licence and had acknowledged the invention. The materials before the Court supported a prima facie view that the patent was valid and had been infringed, that the defendants had no sufficient answer on distinction, and that denial of injunction would permit continuing violations causing harm not adequately compensated by damages.
Conclusion: Temporary injunction was warranted and the defendants were restrained from infringing the patent.
Final Conclusion: The plaintiff's interim protection was upheld, the defendants' request to vacate the injunction failed, and the suit was allowed to proceed with the restraint continuing until final decision.
Ratio Decidendi: In a patent suit, an assignee whose assignment is later registered under the Patents Act, 1970 may maintain the action with effect from the date of execution, and interim injunction may be granted where the patent appears prima facie valid and infringed and the balance of convenience and irreparable harm favour protection.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
