Karnataka High Court Quashes Temporary Injunction Against Areca Nut Dehusking Machine Maker In Patent Suit

The Karnataka High court has set aside an ex parte ad interim injunction that had barred Priya Industries from making or selling an areca nut dehusking machine allegedly infringing a patent held by V-Tech Engineers.

The court found that the Commercial Court had granted the injunction without analysing either the patent claims or whether Priya Industries' machine actually infringed them.

"We find that the impugned order is not sustainable, as it does not clearly set out the reasons for arriving at a prima facie view that the respondent's patent has been infringed," a Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha observed.

The bench added, "We find that there is no analysis of the patent, or of the appellants' machine, which are said to infringe those patent claims."

The appeal was filed by Priya Industries and its proprietor Rangappa Kumar against an order dated June 8, 2026, passed by the Commercial court. The order had restrained them from manufacturing or selling any product found to infringe Indian Patent No. IN259204.

The patent, held by Vishwanatha K, relates to a machine for dehusking areca nuts. Claim 1 describes a synchronised mechanism in which a blade rotates anti-clockwise while a nurling shaft rotates clockwise to remove the husk.

Counsel appearing for Priya argued that this synchronised nurling shaft mechanism, which he described as the principal feature of Claim 1, is absent from the company's machine. He also told the court that a legal notice issued on August 8, 2025, had been answered in detail on September 6, 2025, but the Commercial court had dismissed it as a "bald" reply.

He further submitted that the legal notice referred to the patent claims as originally filed, even though the claims were narrowed before the patent was granted.

Counsel appearing for the patent holder argued that an expert report from NIT Karnataka and other material placed before the Commercial court clearly showed infringement of Patent No. IN259204. He also submitted that the patent is due to expire on August 23, 2027, making interim protection necessary.

The High court, however, noted that while the expert report had been placed before the Commercial court, the impugned order did not indicate that it had been analysed or considered.

"The learned senior counsel for the respondent may be right in contending that expert report was placed before the learned Commercial Court. However, the impugned order does not indicate that the said expert's report was analyzed or considered," the bench observed.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the injunction. It clarified that the Commercial Court remains free to consider the patent holder's application on its own merits and pass a fresh ad interim order, if warranted.

The bench also requested the Commercial Court to decide the application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks.