In Elgi Ultra Private Limited vs Harish Joshi [C.S. (Comm Div.) No. 173 of 2025], the Madras High Court granted an ex parte permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from making derogatory and defamatory statements concerning the Plaintiff’s patented product and awarded costs of Rs. 2 lakhs to the Plaintiff, while clarifying that such relief would not preclude the Defendant from pursuing statutory remedies for patent revocation under the Patents Act.

The dispute concerned the Plaintiff’s patented invention, IN 452787, entitled “A Pressure Regulator Cum Whistle Counter for a Pressure Cooker and a Pressure Cooker with Regulator Cum Whistle Counter”. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had posted disparaging comments on the Plaintiff’s Facebook promotional posts asserting that the patented technology was in fact the Defendant’s invention and patent idea. The Plaintiffs approached the Madras High Court seeking a permanent injunction restraining defamatory statements along with damages of Rs. 10 lakhs.

The Plaintiff relied upon the First Examination Report to demonstrate that the Defendant’s patent application had been cited during examination as prior art, and that such application had ultimately been abandoned. The Court observed that despite having statutory remedies available in the form of post-grant opposition or revocation proceedings, the Defendant had not availed of those mechanisms. Instead, the Defendant resorted to making public assertions on social media claiming ownership over the innovation.

The Court recognised the commercial implications of such statements in the context of a patented product. Relying on evidence relating to promotional expenditure and sales turnover, the Court held that the impugned comments were likely to affect the Plaintiff’s reputation in the market. Consequently, injunctive relief was considered justified. However, the Court declined to award damages in the absence of evidence demonstrating actual consequential monetary loss or reputational injury.

The ruling may assume importance in the growing context of online and social media commentary surrounding intellectual property disputes. The Court’s reasoning indicates public assertions undermining a granted patent without recourse to legal remedies may expose parties to injunctive relief and costs.