Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Over Mold-Tek's Tamper-Evident Packaging Patents

A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, in a judgment delivered on January 28, 2026, dismissed Neway's appeal challenging the grant of injunction over Mold-Tek's patent IN'417, while allowing Mold-Tek's appeal against the vacation of an ad-interim injunction protecting its patent IN'724.

The dispute concerns two patents registered in favour of Mold-Tek Packaging Limited - patent IN'417 titled “Tamper-Evident Leak Proof Pail closure System” and patent IN'724 titled “A Tamper Proof Lid Having Spout for Containers and Process for Its Manufacture.”

Mold-Tek had approached the Commercial Court at Patiala House seeking interim injunctive relief against Neway, alleging unauthorised manufacture and sale of competing packaging products infringing its patents.

In January 2024, the Commercial Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Mold-Tek, restraining Neway. Subsequently, in August 2025, the Court continued the injunction in respect of the patent IN'417 but vacated it in relation to patent IN'724, prompting both parties to challenge the order before the High Court.

While upholding the grant of injunction over patent IN'417, the Division Bench agreed with the Commercial Court that Neway had failed to raise a credible challenge to the validity of the patent at the interim stage.

The Court noted that no meaningful comparison between the patent claims and the alleged prior art had been placed on record and found no infirmity in the conclusion that Neway's product prima facie embodied the essential features of the Mold-Tek's patented invention.

“No credible challenge to the validity of the suit patent, within the meaning of Section 107 of the Patents Act read with Section 64 thereof could, therefore, be said to have been made out by Neway before the learned Commercial Court,” the Bench observed.

With respect to the second patent i.e., IN'724, the Division Bench agreed that Neway's product prima facie infringed Mold-Tek's patent. However, it found fault with the Commercial Court's finding on patent invalidity, observing that the Court had not undertaken a proper examination of the patent claims in light of the prior art and had erroneously conflated the issues of infringement and validity.

The Bench noted that, “the learned Commercial Court, while referring to prior art, makes no reference to the prior art to which it makes reference while returning findings of lack of novelty and obviousness.”

The Court also clarified that once a prima facie case of infringement is established, the burden lies on the alleged infringer to raise a credible challenge to the validity of the patent, a principle which, it held, had not been correctly applied.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the findings on invalidity in relation to patent IN'724 and remanded the issue to the Commercial Court for fresh consideration.

As a consequence, the Court clarified that the earlier ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted in favour of Mold-Tek in respect of patent IN'724 stands revived and shall remain in force until the Commercial Court decides the injunction application afresh.

For Appellant: Advocates Vikas Khera, Sneha Sethia and Rohit

For Respondent: Senior Advocate Jayant K. Mehta with Advocates Ashutosh Kumar, Vinod Chauhan, Radhika Pareva, Adithya B., Yagya Passi, Ayush Sharma and Om.