By Aashi Nema and Rima Majumdar
Introduction
The High Court of Delhi recently delivered a significant judgment in the matter of Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v. Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. The case revolves around two key patents held by Mold-Tek regarding container closure systems: IN 401417 (for a “Tamper-Evident Leak Proof Pail Closure System”) and IN 298724 (for a “Tamper Proof Lid Having Spout for Containers and Process for Its Manufacture”). This dispute highlights the critical importance of claim mapping in patent litigation and clarifies the distinction between “infringement” and “invalidity” as legal defenses.
Facts of the Case
Mold-Tek, the registered owner of the two suit patents, i.e. IN 401417 and IN 298724 alleged that Neway Industries was manufacturing and selling products that infringed upon its exclusive rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970. In January 2024, the Commercial Court in CS Comm No. 1/2024 vide Order dated January 08, 2024 initially granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Mold-Tek, restraining Neway from infringing the suit patents.
However, upon filing an application to vacate the said injunction by Neway, the Commercial Court, vide Order dated August 20, 2025, modified this stance. It confirmed the injunction for the first patent (IN’417) but vacated it for the second patent (IN’724), leading both parties to file cross-appeals. Neway challenged the injunction on IN’417, while Mold-Tek sought to reinstate the injunction for IN’724.
Arguments Advanced by the Parties
Neway’s primary defense for both patents was twofold: first, that their products did not infringe the patents, and second, that the patents themselves were invalid under Section 64 of the Patents Act. For IN’417, Neway argued that the invention was anticipated by a prior art application (IN’127) and other international patents from the United States. They asserted that the features Mold-Tek claimed as novel were already in the public domain.
Mold-Tek countered that Neway failed to provide a credible challenge. They argued that Neway did not perform a “comparative analysis” or “claim mapping” to show exactly how the prior art overlapped with the suit patents. Regarding IN’724, Mold-Tek argued that the Commercial Court had wrongly compared their new “lid incorporating a spout” patent to an older, expired “spout only” patent (IN’276), failing to recognize the inventive step of the combination.
Court’s Observation
The Division Bench of High Court made several vital observations, including:
On challenge to validity of the suit patent: The Court noted that Neway did not bring any credible challenge to the validity of suit patent. In particular, Neway merely alleged that the suit patent IN’417 was obvious, but it failed to produce a comparative analysis with prior art patent.
On Product-to-Claim Mapping: The Court emphasized that mapping a Defendant’s product to the specific claims of a patent is “indispensable”. Without this, it is impossible to legally establish that the Defendant is dealing in the patented product.
The Doctrine of Pith and Marrow: For IN’417, the Court observed that although Neway’s product had minor stylistic differences, it contained all core functional elements, such as the tamper-evident tear band and dual-locking mechanism. Under the “doctrine of equivalence,” these were seen as mere engineering variations rather than material departures.
Conflation of Infringement and Invalidity: The Court corrected the lower court’s logic regarding IN’724. It noted that “infringement” and “invalidity” are separate issues; a finding that a patent is “generic” or lacks novelty does not mean it isn’t being infringed, it simply means the patent might be vulnerable to being cancelled.
Burden of Proof: The Court clarified that while the plaintiff must prove infringement, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove a “credible challenge” to the patent’s validity.
Court’s Order
The High Court ultimately ruled in favor of Mold-Tek on several fronts:
Dismissal of Neway’s Appeal (IN’417): The court upheld the injunction against Neway for the first patent, finding no error in the determination that Neway’s product infringed IN’417 and that Neway failed to prove the patent was invalid.
Partial Success for Mold-Tek (IN’724): The court set aside the lower court’s decision to vacate the injunction for the second patent. It upheld the finding of infringement but remanded the question of the patent’s “invalidity” back to the Commercial Court for de novo, more detailed look.
Revival of Injunction: Consequently, the original ex-parte injunction from January 8, 2024, was revived for IN’724, meaning Neway is once again restrained from dealing in those products until the lower court makes a final decision.
Author’s Note
This judgment serves as a stern reminder to patent litigants that “pleading” invalidity is not the same as “proving” it. Neway’s failure to provide a rigorous comparative analysis, mapping their product against Mold-Tek’s claims, was fatal to their appeal. Furthermore, the Court’s distinction between a product (the spout) and a combination (the lid with a spout) highlights the nuances of “inventive steps” in Indian Patent law. It is also vital to note that the registered patents carry a strong weight, and any challenge to them must be backed by precise, technical evidence rather than general assertions of “prior art.”