Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Patent Injunction Over Insufficient Examination Of Infringement

The Court observed that the Commercial Court had not adequately examined the technical differences between the competing machines or properly assessed the requirements for granting an injunction.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra allowed Five Fingers' appeal on November 4 and remanded the matter to the Commercial Court, Varanasi, for fresh consideration of Lohia Corp's injunction application.

Lohia Corp holds Patent No. 431032, titled “A Device and a Method for Controlling the Motion of a Spreader Bar”. It alleged that Five Fingers' 'FFE VALVO' machine incorporated the patented technology. The dispute arose after Lohia Corp found that a machine purchased from Five Fingers was being used at the manufacturing facility of another defendant in Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh.

Five Fingers denied infringement, arguing that its machine did not use the patented spreader bar but instead employed flaring and folding plates.

It said its mechanism pushed fabric inward to create a triangular fold, unlike Lohia Corp's machine, which used outward spreading to form a hexagonal shape.

It also argued that the Commercial Court had relied on an expert report filed by Lohia Corp without giving it an adequate opportunity to respond.

Lohia Corp maintained that the folding plate performed substantially the same technical role as the patented spreader bar and relied on an expert report mapping the patent claims to the rival machine.

The High Court found that the Commercial Court's findings on the three requirements for an interim injunction — prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury — were wholly cursory in nature.

It observed that the Commercial Court had relied on the expert's conclusion without carefully examining the report, its admissibility and the components identified in it. The Bench also held that the remaining duration of a patent could not, by itself, determine the balance of convenience or irreparable injury.

The Court further noted that several technical issues, including the design and functioning of the spreader bar, folding plate, servo mechanism and the machines' inward and outward movements, had not been appropriately examined.

“We do not deem it appropriate to allow or reject the injunction application in this appeal,” the Bench said, adding that the matter should instead be remitted for fresh consideration.

The Court set aside the May 22, 2026 order and directed the Commercial Court to decide the injunction application afresh, expeditiously and in accordance with law.

For Five Fingers Exports: Advocates Vindhya S. Mani, Akanksha Pandey, Atul Gupta

For Lohia Corp: Senior Advocate Navin Sinha with Advocates Devansh Misra and Ayush Sharma