Patent validity and revocation cannot be decided summarily at the interim stage; injunction restored and suit remanded for trial.

In a patent dispute involving a counterclaim for revocation, the Supreme Court of India held that the Division Bench could not, at the interim stage, summarily decide patent validity, patentability, or the counterclaim on the basis of documents and public material alone. Because the issues involved mixed questions of law and fact requiring formal proof, discovery, and expert evidence, the appellate court should have confined itself to the propriety of the interim injunction rather than adjudicating the merits of the wider patent questions. The Single Judge's injunction was restored and the suit was remanded for trial in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Division Bench could, at the interim stage, summarily decide the validity and patentability of the plaintiffs' claims and the defendants' counterclaim, and whether the injunction order of the Single Judge ought to have been restored with remand of the suit for trial.

Analysis: The dispute raised technically complex questions concerning the scope of the patent, the nature of the claims, exclusion under patent law, and the effect of the counterclaim for revocation. Such matters involved mixed questions of law and fact and required formal proof, discovery, and expert evidence. In a suit of this nature, the court could not short-circuit the trial by deciding patentability and revocation summarily on the basis of documents and public material, especially when the counterclaim had not been finally considered by the Single Judge. The appellate court ought to have confined itself to the propriety of the interim injunction, rather than adjudicating the counterclaim and the wider patent issues on merits.

Conclusion: The summary adjudication on patent validity and the counterclaim was impermissible. The injunction granted by the Single Judge was restored and the suit was remanded for disposal in accordance with law.

---