Inphase Power Technologies Private Limited v ABB India Limited (2016)

Summary

“These two appeals have been filed by the defendants before the Trial Court challenging the common order dated 20.2.2016 on IAs.No.2 to 6 in O.S.No.6254/2015.” (para 1) The plaintiff’s case was that “Defendants No.2 to 4 are former employees of the Plaintiff” (para 6) and that “The defendants have unauthorisedly incorporated plaintiff’s patented invention in their product.” (para 9) Its applications included “IA.No.3 for an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from infringing Patent No.206766; IA.No.4 seeking an order of temporary injunction from misappropriating or distributing plaintiff’s confidential information”, and “By the impugned common order, Trial Court has dismissed IAs.No.2, 5 & 6 and allowed IAs.No.3 & 4.” (para 5) In appeal “the whole endeavour on behalf of the appellants was to drive home a point that the product manufactured and offered for sale by the defendants differs from the product manufactured by the plaintiff.” (para 19)

The Court held that defendants No. 2 and 3 “were in association with 1st defendant-Company even while they were on the rolls of Plaintiff-Company” (para 23), and that “In a case of this nature, at this stage what is required to be examined is whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case.” (para 24) “It is settled that unessential features in an infringing article or process are of no account.” (para 25) “On a careful analysis of the law on the point, what follows is that an ex-employee may be injuncted from using the information in his possession and acting in a manner which can be detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff.” (para 30) “The ground with regard to minute differences in technical specifications is untenable in view of various authoritative pronouncements discussed supra.” (para 32) The Court added that “a Court of appeal should be slow in interfering with the discretionary orders passed by the Trial Court, even if, a contrary view is possible by an appellate Court.” (para 35) “Resultantly, they fail and are accordingly dismissed.” “No costs.” (para 37)

What the court decided

1. Former employees and the new company. “It is pertinent to note that the defendants in their common written statement have not denied that defendant No.2 and 3 were using the E-mail I.Ds provided by 1st defendant-company.” “However, they have not denied a vital fact that they possessed the e-mail I.Ds, provided by first defendant-company and they were actively using them.” “Therefore it would be reasonable to hold that defendants No. 2 and 3 were in association with 1st defendant-Company even while they were on the rolls of Plaintiff-Company.” (para 23) “The plaint averments and the replies in the written statement referred to hereinabove clearly point to the fact that defendants No.2 to 4 who were ex-employees of plaintiff-company were in league with defendants No.5 and 6.” (paras 23–24)
2. The inquiry at the interlocutory stage. “It was strenuously contended on behalf of the appellants - defendants that there are several fine differences in technical specifications between the product manufactured by the plaintiff-company and the 1st defendant. The trial Court has examined in extenso and carefully considered respective contentions of the parties. Defendants’ principal ground in these appeals is that the learned trial Judge has not correctly compared the specifications of the machines manufactured by the plaintiff and first defendant. In a case of this nature, at this stage what is required to be examined is whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case.” (para 24)
3. Transfer of the information. “The next aspect for consideration would be whether the data/information was transferred. The answer to this question should be in the affirmative because according to the plaintiffs, a product of akin kind is offered by first defendant-company.” (para 25)
4. Unessential features. “Defendants have asserted that their product is different in many ways. It is settled that unessential features in an infringing article or process are of no account.” Quoting Raj Parkash v Mangat Ram Chowdhry (1977), “cited by the learned senior Counsel for the respondent”, the Court set out that “If the infringing goods are made with the same object in view which is attained by the patented article, then a minor variation does not mean that there is no piracy. A person is guilty of infringement if he makes what is in substance the equivalent of the patented article. Some trifling or unessential variation has to be ignored.” (para 25)
5. Modification of the main invention. “It was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that, there are bound to be modifications even in the machines manufactured by the plaintiff in view of continuous research and development. Adverting to the case of Ravi Kamal Bali vs. Kala Tech & ors. reported in (2008) 6 AIR Bom R(NOC 1103) 360, it was contended that only a patentee of main invention is entitled to improve or modify the main invention.” The passage reproduced from Ravi Kamal Bali v Kala Tech (2008) includes: “It is obvious therefore that only the patentee of the main invention is entitled to improve or modify the main invention for otherwise it would permit anybody to benefit from it by exploiting the main invention” (para 26)
6. Protection of the employer’s information. “On a careful analysis of the law on the point, what follows is that an ex-employee may be injuncted from using the information in his possession and acting in a manner which can be detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff. A company which invests its time, money and manpower in research and development deserves protection against infringement and passing of.” (para 30)
7. The four grounds of defence. “In the case on hand, the defendants have sought to defend the action on too fragile grounds, which can be hardly countenanced. Firstly, that e-mails are not authentic. Secondly, that there are differences in technical specifications vis-à-vis the product manufactured by the plaintiff and the first defendant. Thirdly, that the name of the product is generic. Fourthly, that a technical report prepared by one Dr.Vishwanathan Talasila relied upon by the plaintiff is vitiated.” (para 30) “The ground with regard to the authenticity of their e-mails can hardly come to the aid of appellants because the stand taken by the appellants No.2 and 3 is that at the material point of time, they had already tendered the resignation and they were under notice period. Thus, they have defended their act of possessing their e-mail ids connected to the domain of first defendant – Company.” (para 31) “The ground with regard to minute differences in technical specifications is untenable in view of various authoritative pronouncements discussed supra.” (para 32) “The ground with regard to the generic name of the product is per se contrary to appellants’ conduct of applying for a patent in the name ‘PQC STATCON’.” (para 33) “The ground impeaching the report prepared by Dr.Vishwanathan Talasila is equally fallible because no evidence is brought on record which may even remotely suggests that the said report is biased for any extraneous consideration.” (paras 30–34)
8. Appellate interference with discretion. “Before concluding, it is important to be reminded that a Court of appeal should be slow in interfering with the discretionary orders passed by the Trial Court, even if, a contrary view is possible by an appellate Court.” From Wander Ltd v Antox India P Ltd the Court set out that “In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions”, and from Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Limited v S.L. Vaswani that “once the court of first instance exercises its discretion to grant or refuse to grant relief of temporary injunction and the said exercise of discretion is based upon objective consideration of the material placed before the court and is supported by cogent reasons, the appellate court will be loath to interfere simply because on a de novo consideration of the matter it is possible for the appellate court to form a different opinion on the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and equity.” (para 35) “In view of above discussions, the grounds urged on behalf of the appellants are untenable. Further, it is fairly well-settled that when the trial Court based on consideration of material on record comes to a conclusion, as a rule, the same is ought not to be disturbed unless the same is ex facie perverse.” (paras 35–36)
9. Disposition. “On a critical analysis of facts of this case coupled with law enunciated in various judgments cited on behalf of both parties, I am of the considered view that these appeals do not merit any consideration. Resultantly, they fail and are accordingly dismissed.” “No costs.” (para 37)

Subsequent treatment

No later judicial treatment and no further appeal traced as of 10 October 2026.