The Delhi High Court’s Division Bench, on January 31, 2024, dismissed the Intra Court Appeal in Freebit AS vs Exotic Mile Pvt. Lld. [FAO(OS) (COMM) 15/2024 and CAV 43/2024 and CM Nos. 5698/2024, 5699/2024 & 5700/2024] upholding the Single Judge’s judgment that dismissed the appellant’s application for an interlocutory injunction in patent infringement suit [CS (COMM) 884/2023].

The appeal challenged the Single Judge’s decision which rejected the appellant’s application on two main grounds:

• Suppression & misrepresentation of material facts by the appellant in its plaint: The appellant was found to not have approached the Court with clean hands, having provided false information about the status of international applications related to the patent in question, leading to the decision that the appellant was not entitled to equitable relief.
• Prima facie invalidity of the appellant’s registered patent: The Court was satisfied with the defendant’s submission that credibly challenged the validity of the suit patent with instances of it being invalidated or refused in various countries. Additionally, the Court expressed concerns about the accuracy of the information provided by the appellant to the Indian Patent Office, given the earlier noted misrepresentations and the one admittedly made by the appellant in Form 3 filed with the Indian Patent Office.

The appellant submitted that the suppression and misrepresentation was not malafide but due to bonafide error, and that the Single Judge’s conclusion was ill founded. The submission was supported by pointing out the transparent disclosure of the revocation status of its corresponding European patent implying that that there was no deliberate intention to conceal information about the related patent’s revocation in other jurisdictions.

The Division Bench remarked that the mere disclosure of the correct revocation status in one jurisdiction cannot mitigate the overall misrepresentation made by the appellant and upheld the Single Judge’s conclusion. The Bench rejected the contention that the Single Judge had ignored the established legal principles, noting the Single Judge’s adherence to precedent. The Bench found that the Single Judge had applied the triple test – existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury – while deciding the interim relief application, and therefore held that any interference by the Bench will be unjustified.

The Bench referred to Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. and concluded that as long as a Single Bench reasonably exercises its discretion in deciding interim relief matters and does not ignore the settled principals of law in doing so, the Division Bench’s interference in such decision is unwarranted.