---
title: "Delhi High Court Clarifies Patent Infringement and Equitable Relief in Mold-Tek Case"
date: 2025-08-05
author: "Ayush Shukla"
url: https://www.indialaw.in/blog/intellectual-property-rights/delhi-hc-on-patent-infringement-relief-in-mold-tek-case/
---

# Delhi High Court Clarifies Patent Infringement and Equitable Relief in Mold-Tek Case

Posted On - 5 August, 2025 •

By - [Ayush Shukla](https://www.indialaw.in/author/ayush-shukla/ "Posts by Ayush Shukla")

[![Patent Infringement](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/7841818.jpeg)](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/7841818.jpeg)

## **Introduction**

Patent law is designed to balance innovation with fair market competition. While patents grant exclusive rights to inventors, courts must ensure that these rights are exercised within the bounds of equity and public interest. The Delhi High Court’s judgment in *Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd. v. Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.,* reaffirms this balance. It highlights the necessity of proper infringement analysis and clarifies the legal standards for equitable relief in patent litigation.

## **Understanding Patent Infringement in India**

Under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970 (Rights of patentees), a patentee has the exclusive right to prevent others from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the patented product or process without consent. “While the Patents Act, 1970 does not provide an explicit definition of ‘infringement,’ Section 48 delineates the scope of a patentee’s exclusive rights, and any unauthorised use falling within this scope is treated as infringement.”

Indian courts have evolved a jurisprudence where infringement is determined through a comparison of the defendant’s product with the patent’s claims, not just with the patentee’s product. This is known as a “product-to-patent” comparison. The aim is to see whether the essential features of the patented claims are being appropriated by the defendant.

## **The Role of Equitable Relief in Patent Law**

Equitable remedies such as interim injunctions are governed by three well-established principles:

1. Prima facie case
2. Balance of convenience
3. Irreparable harm

In patent cases, courts add a fourth layer: the defendant’s ability to raise a “credible challenge” to the patent’s validity. This ensures that unworthy patents do not get judicial protection merely because they were granted by the Patent Office.

## **Case Background: Mold-Tek v. Pronton**

Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd. held two patents:

- IN’417: Tamper-Evident Leak-Proof Pail Closure System
- IN’724: Tamper-Proof Lid with Integrated Spout

These inventions were related to plastic lids used for food containers. Mold-Tek claimed that Pronton Plast Pack was manufacturing a lid that infringed its patents. The Commercial Court initially granted an ex parte interim injunction in December 2023, restraining Pronton from selling the allegedly infringing products.

However, Pronton filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, seeking to vacate the injunction. The Commercial Court granted this on 2 May 2024, citing differences in product features and failure by Mold-Tek to disclose relevant prior art. Mold-Tek appealed the decision.

## **Delhi High Court’s Analysis and Ruling**

The High Court’s ruling focused on two main axes:

1. Whether infringement had occurred?
2. Whether the defendant had raised a credible challenge to the patent’s validity?

### **1. Product-to-Patent Comparison is Essential**

The High Court criticized the Commercial Court for conducting a product-to-product comparison instead of comparing the defendant’s product with the patented claims. It emphasized that the correct approach is to map the defendant’s product onto the specifications and claims of the patent.

The Court held:

“*The comparison has to be between the defendant’s product and the complete specifications of the plaintiff’s patent, not with the plaintiff’s product*.”

This observation aligns with global best practices and ensures that infringement is not assessed superficially but based on the scope of the claims.

### **2. Credible Challenge Standard Clarified**

The Court reiterated that a defendant could escape interim injunction if it raises a credible challenge under Section 107 (Defences, etc., in suits for infringement) of the Patents Act 1970. A credible challenge implies that the patent is vulnerable to revocation under any of the grounds in Section 64, such as lack of novelty or inventive step.

Importantly, the Court stated that:

“*A credible challenge is not a fanciful, theoretical or speculative defence. It must be backed by scientific material and expert evidence*.”

In the present case, Pronton cited expired patent IN’276 and other prior art documents. However, the Court found that the Commercial Court failed to map these prior arts against the suit patents to determine whether they truly undermined novelty or inventiveness.

### **3. Misplaced Burden of Proof**

The High Court criticized the Commercial Court for shifting the burden of proving novelty onto the plaintiff. The law clearly places the burden on the defendant to prove invalidity when it invokes Section 107 as a defence.

The Court observed:

“*Once the plaintiff establishes prima facie infringement, the burden to establish vulnerability lies entirely with the defendant*.”

This interpretation reinforces the legal framework that protects genuine innovators while providing a fair chance to defendants who raise substantial objections.

### **4. Suppression of Material Facts Must Be Proved**

While the Commercial Court had accused Mold-Tek of suppressing prior art, the High Court found no clear evidence or reasoned finding to support this. It held that equitable relief should not be denied merely on allegations of suppression unless they are substantiated.

## **Relevance and Broader Implications**

The ruling in *Mold-Tek v. Pronton* is a reaffirmation of essential doctrines in patent litigation:

- Infringement must be determined through precise legal analysis.
- Equitable relief should be granted or denied based on sound reasoning, not mere assumptions.
- Burdens of proof must be correctly allocated.
- A “credible challenge” must rise above speculative doubt and be supported by expert insight.

In a jurisdiction where patent litigation is increasing, especially in pharmaceuticals, biotech, and manufacturing, this ruling provides a strong procedural and doctrinal foundation.

## **Conclusion**

The Delhi High Court’s decision in *Mold-Tek v. Pronton* offers a robust framework for adjudicating interim relief in patent disputes. It restores focus on rigorous infringement analysis, reaffirms the burden of proof standards, and preserves the equitable nature of injunctive relief. For patentees and defendants alike, the message is clear: claims and defences must be legally and technically robust, and courts will demand nothing less.

This judgment serves as a significant guidepost in India’s evolving patent litigation landscape and underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing innovation with fair market practices. For more details, write to us at: [contact@indialaw.in](mailto:contact@indialaw.in)

Disclaimer - This article is intended for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal counsel in relation to their individual circumstances.

[Download PDF](https://www.indialaw.in/blog/intellectual-property-rights/delhi-hc-on-patent-infringement-relief-in-mold-tek-case//pdf/)

[Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)](https://www.indialaw.in/expertise/intellectual-property-rights/)

---

# IndiaLaw LLP — Offices & Contact Details

---

## General Contact

| | |
|---|---|
| **Website** | https://www.indialaw.in |
| **Primary email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Primary phone** | +91 836-9995919 |
| **Contact form** | https://www.indialaw.in/connect/ |
| **Careers (separate channel)** | https://www.indialaw.in/careers/ |


---

## All Offices (9 locations across 8 cities)

### 1. Mumbai — Registered Office & Head Office (Apeejay Chambers)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Apeejay Chambers, Ground Floor, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-6924-7400](tel:02269247400) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate · IP |
| **Notes** | The HQ. 5 partners based here. Handles PAN-India litigation, arbitration, corporate, banking, IP and real estate practice. Largest team across all offices. |

### 2. Mumbai — Non-Litigation Office (Excelsior, Fort)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 4th Floor, New Excelsior Theatre Pvt. Ltd., Amrit Keshav Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-697-40500](tel:022-697-40500) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Non-litigation only — consultations, negotiations, transactional work |
| **Notes** | Opened 2024. Litigation and arbitration remain at the Apeejay Chambers head office. |

### 3. Delhi

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Flat No. 1107 & 1108, Prakashdeep Building, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/delhi/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | 3 partners based here. Located near the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court and other appellate bodies. |

### 4. Kolkata

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Centre Point Building, Room No. 214, 2nd Floor, Premises No. 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Opp. Great Eastern Hotel, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata – 700 001, West Bengal |
| **Phone** | [+91 33 4813 1001](tel:+913348131001) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/kolkata/ |
| **Practice focus** | Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Commercial & Civil Litigation · Arbitration · Banking Litigation · Real Estate · Labour & Employment · Consumer |
| **Notes** | Advises banks, NBFCs, MSMEs and corporates on transactions and dispute resolution. Works in close coordination with the Mumbai HO. |

### 5. Chennai

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | GF-A, 19 Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/chennai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Full-fledged office with experienced legal team. Supported by Mumbai HO. |

### 6. Bengaluru (Bangalore)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | INDIALAW LLP, No. 7 Chinnaswamy Mudaliar Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore – 560 051 |
| **Phone** | [080-4167-2444](tel:08041672444) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/bengaluru/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate · Family Laws · Labour |
| **Notes** | Located near Bangalore High Court. Handles corporate, commercial, banking and matrimonial disputes. |

### 7. Hyderabad

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 403, 4th Floor, Sanatana Ecstasy Building, beside Tanishq Show Room, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad – 500 029, Telangana |
| **Phone** | [040-6666-5166](tel:04066665166) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/hyderabad/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Banking · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Particularly well known for complex banking matters and real estate transactions. |

### 8. Cochin (Kochi)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Second Floor, Pulikkal Building, K.K. Padmanabhan Road, Ernakulam North – 682 018, Kerala |
| **Phone** | [0484-3583961](tel:04843583961) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/cochin/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Commercial disputes, property litigation, financial-claim arbitrations and real estate transactions. |

### 9. Noida (NCR)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | No. 16 & 17, Silver Offices, 17th Floor, Wave One, Sector 18, Noida – 201 301 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/noida/ |
| **Practice focus** | Aviation · Insurance · Mergers & Acquisitions · Corporate |
| **Office head** | **Mr. Dinesh Gupta** (joined August 2025 to lead and expand the corporate practice) |
| **Notes** | Newest office. Sector-focused on highly regulated industries serving NCR-based clients. |

---

## Quick-Dial Phone List

| Office | Phone |
|---|---|
| Mumbai HO (Apeejay) | 022-6924-7400 |
| Mumbai Excelsior | 022-697-40500 |
| Kolkata | +91 33 4813 1001 |
| Bengaluru | 080-4167-2444 |
| Hyderabad | 040-6666-5166 |
| Cochin | 0484-3583961 |
| **General / Marketing line** | **+91 836-9995919** |

Delhi, Chennai and Noida route through the general number.

---

## Social Channels

- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/indialaw
- X / Twitter: https://twitter.com/Indialawmumbai
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/indialawllp/
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/indialawllp

---