For patent owners looking to enforce their rights swiftly and effectively, it is essential to know that ex-parte injunctions remain a viable, court-sanctioned route in India. Despite rising judicial scrutiny, Indian courts continue to grant such relief when a well-prepared case is presented. For global rights holders, India still offers meaningful opportunities for urgent enforcement action, provided the request is procedurally and evidentially airtight. The parameters for awarding ex-parte remedies have been admirably raised by Indian courts, effectively balancing the rights of the defendant, the plaintiff's interests, and the public good.

In granting injunctions, Indian courts adhere to a well-settled three-pronged test—requiring the establishment of (i) a prima facie case, (ii) irreparable harm, and (iii) a balance of convenience—firmly entrenched by the Supreme Court in landmark rulings such as Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh[1] and Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co.[2] These cases emphasized that the three conditions must be met cumulatively, not in isolation. The jurisprudence has since evolved, particularly in intellectual property matters, where this test forms the cornerstone of any interim relief analysis. When seeking an ex-parte injunctionThe bar has been lifted even higher. Courts must be convinced that the delay inherent in giving notice would defeat the purpose of the injunction itself (Order 39 Rule 3 CPC).

A plaintiff must not merely claim urgency—they must demonstrate it with the clinical precision of a surgeon. And that starts with the plaint that must pass the three-pronged test.

I. Building the Prima Facie Case: Not Just a Claim, But a Case File

A plaint seeking ex-parte relief must read like a self-contained dossier:

  • Establish Ownership and Validity: Clearly articulate the patent’s registration, ownership chain, and working status. Include Form 27 filings to show it’s not a paper patent. Where applicable, cite foreign equivalents, grant history, and challenges successfully overcome.
  • Attach Claim Charts and Prior Art Distinction: The claim chart is your weapon. Courts want to see exactly how the defendant’s product or process maps onto the patented claims. It is the single most persuasive tool for showing prima facie infringement. Avoid generic language—show the technical overlap, element-by-element. However, in our experience, this too must be detailed:

A robust claim chart presentation should ideally include the following three tiers:

-Claim Construction Chart: Interpret the claims in plain technical and legal language. This provides the court clarity on what the patent actually protects. For example, if a term like “actuating mechanism” appears, explain its meaning in the context of the specification and file history.

-Infringement Mapping Chart: Independently identify where and how each element of the claim is found in the defendant’s product. Use documentation, technical manuals, teardown reports, or photographs.

-Integrated Tri-Column Chart: Present a combined chart that includes: (i) the claim element, (ii) the plaintiff’s construction/interpretation of that element, and (iii) the corresponding feature of the infringing product. This is the clearest format for judicial consumption.

Supporting diagrams or expert affidavit-based tables further strengthen the narrative. In cases involving mechanical or electromechanical inventions, high-resolution images of the infringing product—showing internal parts, components, and their arrangement—can be critical in visualizing the overlap. In pharmaceutical and biotechnology matters, attaching characterization studies (e.g., HPLC data, bioequivalence reports, spectral analyses, or dissolution profiles) to show molecular or functional similarity is vital. Where available, these should be backed by expert declarations to reinforce evidentiary weight.

Where possible, video or photographic evidence of use in operation should accompany the chart to leave no doubt.

Finally, to reinforce the prima facie strength of the patent, a contrast with the closest prior art could be incorporated. This contrast helps establish that the patented invention is not merely a trivial modification of existing knowledge, but a distinct technological advance. Ideally, a fourth column can be added—juxtaposing each claim element against relevant prior art disclosures—to further highlight novelty and inventive step. When courts see a clean break from the prior art and a clear overlap with the infringing product, the path to interim relief becomes compelling.

II. Demonstrating Irreparable Harm: Go Beyond Platitudes The plaint must show the irreparable harm and not just state it.

  • Launch Timeline: Is the defendant about to enter the market? Attach advertisements, regulatory filings, product demos, or distributor announcements. Show urgency with evidence.
  • Market Disruption: Explain how the infringement will erode price, dilute goodwill, or compromise exclusivity. If the product is a flagship innovation, highlight the strategic loss.
  • Inadequacy of Damages: Articulate why monetary compensation will not undo the harm. For instance, explain how pricing pressure in a saturated market, reputational dilution, or irreversible market share loss cannot be fixed post-facto.
  • Commercial Lifecycle Consideration: If the patented technology is near the end of its commercial lifecycle, even a short delay in enforcement can result in losing the market altogether.

III. Balancing the Convenience Scale

This is the section the judges seem to read closely, especially while deciding an ex-parte relief:

  • Compare Investments: Has the plaintiff spent years and crores developing the technology while the defendant is merely a copier? Make the investment story tangible.
  • Risk of Delay: Is the defendant fly-by-night, or prone to litigation evasion? Support this with records of past non-compliance or previous litigation behaviour.
  • Public Interest: Especially in pharma or infrastructure, demonstrate that the injunction will not harm consumer access or pricing. If anything, show that public interest aligns with the injunction.
  • Alternative Reliefs Explored: Demonstrate that the plaintiff considered sending cease-and-desist notices or licensing discussions, but the urgency or evasiveness of the defendant necessitated court intervention.

Recent Precedents:

In Falcon Autotech v. Kengic[3] the court granted ex-parte injunctions in a patent infringement matter —but only when the plaintiff comes to court fully armed. In that case, the court was presented with detailed claim charts [the claim charts as discussed above], credible evidence of imminent market entry by a foreign defendant, and a history of investments by the plaintiff in building the product ecosystem.

Conversely, in Kailash Kumar Jain v. Kundan Electro[4], the Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte injunction for lack of recorded reasons. Despite a valid infringement claim, the court emphasized that procedural rigour—especially under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC—is non-negotiable.

Similarly, in BMS v. Hetero[5], the Delhi High Court issued a notable ex-parte injunction in a pharma patent case, citing imminent drug launch and risk of irreparable market disruption. However, this came under criticism for being close to a 'patent linkage' enforcement. This underscores that while relief is available, courts are increasingly mindful of the policy implications.

In the case of Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. v. Roche Products (India) Pvt. Ltd.[6] sheds light on how crucial it is for plaintiffs to get their pleadings right. The Delhi High Court has made it clear: if you're seeking an injunction, you need more than just a registered patent and a sense of urgency. The strength of your plaint can significantly influence whether you walk away with interim protection or not.

A key lesson from the decision is the necessity of clearly mapping out the alleged infringement. In Roche’s case, the court wasn’t convinced that they had demonstrated the scope of their exclusivity over Pertuzumab or detailed Zydus’ infringing acts with enough clarity. This ruling also introduced a now crucial requirement—claim mapping. Plaintiffs must line up each element of their patent claims with the allegedly infringing product or process, providing a molecular-level comparison. Without this level of specificity, the court indicated that interim relief simply cannot be granted.

The court expects a breakdown that shows how each claim element is satisfied, right up to the very last element. Without this level of specificity, interim relief is unlikely to be granted.

For legal practitioners, this judgment serves as a reminder to ensure that the plaint is not just a procedural formality but a robust and well-documented narrative of the rights being enforced. It should contain detailed descriptions of the past enforcement actions, market presence, loss of goodwill or revenue, and any public interest implications. Courts are increasingly scrutinizing such details to decide whether equitable relief should be granted, particularly in matters where the balance of convenience and public interest are contested.

[1] (1992), 1 SCC 719, AIR1993SC276B

[2] (1995) SC, 5 (SC)

[3] 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5328

[4] FAO (COMM) 196/2024

[5] 2008 [CS(OS) No. 2680/2008]

[6] 2024: DHC:7868

Authors:

Rahul Bagga, Partner, Dentons Link Legal

Vidhi Agrawal, Associate, Dentons Link Legal

Disclaimer: The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.