MOLD TEK PACKAGING LIMITED vs PRONTON PLAST PACK PVT. LTD.

Judgment text excerpt

$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO (COMM) 114/2024, CM APPL. 34224/2024 & CM APPL. 34226/2024 MOLD TEK PACKAGING LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Ms. Radhika Pareva, Ms. Yagya Passi and Mr. Rajat Sinha, Advs. versus PRONTON PLAST PACK PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vikas Khera, Mr. Lalit Ambastha, Ms. Sneha Sethia, Mr. Yash Sharma and Mr. Subham Rathore, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 11.07.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. Facts, and the lis 1. The appellant before us was the plaintiff in CS (Comm) 668/2023, in which the impugned order dated 2 May 2024 has been passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial), Patiala House Courts1, under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Signature Not Verified 1 “the learned Commercial Court”, hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR FAO (COMM) 114/2024 Page 1 of 35 Signing Date:14.07.2025 13:08:53 19082. 2. Inasmuch as we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the Order XXXIX Rule 4 application of the respondent/defendant for de novo consideration, we would be restricting our discussion to the extent necessary for the said purpose. 3. The appellant was granted patents IN 4014173 and IN 2987244 5 . For the sake of convenience, both the patents together would be referred to hereinafter as “suit patents”. 4. IN’417 was in respect of an invention titled “TAMPER- EVIDENT LEAK PROOF PAIL CLOSURE SYSTEMS”, whereas IN’724 was in respect of an invention titled “A TAMPER PROOF LID HAVING SPOUT FOR CONTAINERS AND PROCESS FOR ITS MANUFACTURE”. 5. Broadly speaking, we may note that the suit patents were both pertaining to a