ITW GSE APS & ANR v. DABICO AIRPORTSOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ORS

C. ALLEGED INFRINGING ACTIVITIES

14. The grievance of the plaintiff is that since 2020 and in subsequent years, the defendants have bid in tenders floated by Government for installation of PCA units and have won tenders at Goa, Hyderabad and Delhi Airports. Thetechnicalspecifications of these PCA units offered by defendants, according to plaintiffs, correspond with the claims of the plaintiffs’ suit patent.

15. Plaintiffs claim to have put the defendants to notice of the infringement ofthe suit patent in UK and in India since 2020. On 8th June 2020, ITW first initiated written correspondence with Cavotec indicating that the PCA unit described on Cavotec’s website has all the features of Claim 1 of EP ‘669, the suit patent’s corresponding European patent. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants in their correspondence CS(COMM) 628/2023 8 of 71 continued to evade questions on how their PCA units infringe the suit patent.

16. In March, 2023,theplaintiffs also initiated pre-litigation mediation with defendants; however, due to absence of any progress on this front, mediation failed on 4th September, 2023.

D. PROCEEDINGS SO FAR

17. Summons wereissued in thesuit on 06th September, 2023.Since the defendants chose not to disclose their products, p laintiffs filed an applicationbeing I.A. 17217/2023 seeking inspection of defendants PCA units through a Local Commissioner, which was refused by this Court by order dated 01st November, 2023. In this order,defendants’ submissionthat their operation & instruction manuals and the Government tenders’ specifications aresufficient for adjudication for infringement was noted by the Court. The Court recorded the defendants’ statement in para 34 that they would stand by their own manuals,to which theplaintiffs seek to map their claim. The relevant paragraph is produced as under: “34…. Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal also points out, in this context, that his client stands by the specifications and features of the defendants' PCAs as contained in the documents on the basis of which the plaintiffs claim to have undertaken its claim-mapping exercise. That being so, he claimed to soliloquize (or, as he put it, "ask himself) as to the justification for the plaintiffs seeking a physical inspection based mapping by a local commissioner. He submits that, once the plaintiffs have themselves claimed to haveadduced sufficient evidence to CS(COMM) 628/2023 9 of 71 establish infringement of the suit patent by the defendants' PCAs, and the document and material on which the said mapping was done was not denied by the defendants, there is no justification, whatsoever, for the prayers in this application.

35. I entirely agree.”

18. A Counter Claim has also been filed by defendants, inter alia, seeking revocation of IN ‘145.

19. Mr. Pravin Anand, counsel for plaintiffs, drew attention to a tabulation provided in their replication, givinga feature-wisebreakdown of claim number 1 of the suit patent, which is extracted as under: Feature 1.[1] A preconditioned air unit (10) for supplying preconditioned air to an aircraft parked on the ground, thepreconditioned air unit comprising: Feature 1.[2] a housing(12)accommodatinga flow duct (20) with an air inlet for ambient air and an air outlet for connection to the parked aircraft Feature 1.[3] a blower (30)connected with theflow duct (20) for generation of an air flow from the air inlet (22) toward the air outlet (25) Feature 1.[4] a plurality of refrigeration systems (36), wherein each refrigeration system comprises: at least one compressor (38); at least one condenser (40); at least one expansion valve (42); at least one evaporator (44) connected in a flow circuit containing a refrigerant, and CS(COMM) 628/2023 10 of 71 wherein the at least one evaporator (44) interacts with the air flow in the flow duct (20); and at least one variable frequency driver (46, 54, 56) for power supply of the at least one compressor (38); and Feature 1.[5] thehousing(12)further accommodates a central controller (60)thatis configured for controlling operation of the preconditioned air unit (10) includingthe variablefrequency drivers (46, 54, 56) of theplurality ofrefrigeration systems (36), characterized in that Feature 1.[6] at least one variable frequency driver (46, 54,

56) has a controller that is configured for variationofthe output frequency of the at least one variable frequency driver (46, 54, 56) Feature 1.[7] and thecentralcontroller (60)is connected to at least one controller of the at least one variable frequency driver (46, 54, 56). Feature 1.[8] wherein thecentralcontroller (60)automatically adjusts the cooling performed by the preconditioned air unit (10) to at least one of: the selected type of aircraft, the ambient temperature, the humidity, the cabin temperature, the outgoing temperature and the outgoing airflow from the preconditioned air unit (10). CS(COMM) 628/2023 11 of 71

E. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS

20. Mr. Pravin Anandexpanded on the basic features of the suit patent, with a presentationto supporthis submissions. The relevant aspects of his submissions are as under:

21. The PCA units are used to introduce fresh conditioned air into an aircraft cabin whiletheaircraft is parked at a gate for maintenance. The air is filtered, heated or cooled, and moistureis removed beforedelivery to the aircraft.

22. Conventionally, aircrafts used their own auxiliary power units to power jet fuel driven air conditioning equipment which were not cost effective nor environmentally friendly.ThePCA unit is the replacement of the APU when the aircraft is on the ground.

23. The PCA unit drawsair from ambienttemperatureon theairfield and cools it down. Based on the temperature profile of each airport, the PCA unit is engaged from thetime the passengersdisembarkfrom an aircraft and theaircraft is serviced, till the embarkationofthepassengerson theaircraft.

24. The objectiveof the suit patentwas to design a PCA unit that is able to automatically adjustcoolingperformance, accordingto at least oneof the followingconditions: typeofaircraft, ambienttemperature, humidity, cabin temperature.

25. The crux of the suit patent was to supply preconditioned air using ambient air through multiple refrigeration systems controlled through a CS(COMM) 628/2023 12 of 71 central controller, which manages the VFDs attached to the compressor. The job of the centralcontroller was to automatically adjust the cooling of the PCA depending on the type of aircraft, the ambient temperature, humidity, cabin temperature etc.

26. The components of a PCA unit and its housing are represented as under:

27. The 3D diagram for illustrative purposes has been provided by plaintiffs and extracted as under: CS(COMM) 628/2023 13 of 71

28. Each refrigeration unit in the PCA comprises of an evaporator, compressor, expansion valve, condenser, air flow duct and VFD. The 3D diagram specifying these components in a refrigeration unit have been supplied by plaintiffs and extracted as under: CS(COMM) 628/2023 14 of 71

29. The refrigerationcircuit involves the regular refrigeration cycle, but therefrigerant passes througha circuit involving these components, and it changes the temperature of the refrigerant to produce cooling or heating.

30. The compressor, which is the heart and soul of a refrigeration unit, was traditionally directly connected to the main power supply in conventional PCA units and, therefore, was limited by the supply. In the suit patent, the compressor is driven by the VFD which automatically adjusts the compressors operating speed to match the production of the compressed air. VFD essentially varies the frequency and voltage of the power supply. This allows the VFD to control the cooling requirements.

31. The VFD has a controller, configured for variation of the output frequency of theVFD, which in turn is connected to the central controller, which automatically adjusts the performance of each compressor, depending on the surrounding conditions.

32. In this background, Mr. Anand submitted, that the technical contribution of the suit patent, was a PCA unit, having at least two refrigerationsystems, each system having a VFD controlled compressor, connected to a centralcontroller. This allowed the individual compressors to run at different speeds, and therefore, managing the best and most efficient compressor speed mode. Without the suit patent, multiple refrigerationcircuits willoperateas per fixed capacity irrespective of their requirement, which could rangefrom extremehot in airports like Dubai to extremecold in airportslikeFinland or seasonal variations in airports like CS(COMM) 628/2023 15 of 71 India. It also allows management of cooling in the event there is failure of any one refrigeration circuit, by varying the capacity of other circuits.

33. Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted thatwhilethe suit patent (IN ‘145) was neutralto modularity,the plaintiffs other patent (IN ‘952) was a modular arrangement in which the refrigeration modules could be removed and readjusted in a modularprocess. Theinfringement claimed was qua thesuit patent IN ‘145, and not IN ‘952.

34. Plaintiff’s counsel claimed infringement of the suit patent by mappingit on variouspieces of information ofthe defendants PCA unit as could be gleaned from: a) Brochureofdefendants’PCA unitswhen defendantNo.1to 3 used to trade under the brand Cavotec; b) Brochure and datasheets of defendant No.4, which is the manufacturer of Cavotec branded PCA units which are installed at various airports in India by defendant No.1. c) Operation,Maintenance & Trouble Shooting Manual for PCA unit (Model number PDX 60IS), which sets out details and specification of the defendants’ PCA units. d) Tender documents (request for proposal) released on behalf of the airport authority at Goa, delineating the specification of the PCA unit. The defendants’ bid under the tender was successful. CS(COMM) 628/2023 16 of 71

35. Plaintiffs further asserted that amongst the abovementioned documents, claim mapping with the Operation, Maintenance & Trouble ShootingManualfor PCA unit (ModelnumberPDX 60IS)demonstrates the infringement of the suit patent unequivocally.

36. This was in context,as noted above, thatdefendant hadnot disclosed the product and plaintiffs’ application for inspection by Local Commissioner, as noted above, was rejected by this Court.

37. The following aspects were highlighted by plaintiffs’ counsel in relation to the claim for infringement, by giving a comparison of each featureof plaintiffs’PCA unit as shown in the tabulation at paragraph 19 above and relevant parts of the defendants’ documents, especially the: i. The operation and maintenance manual of the defendant’s product specified that the product was a PCA unit. ii. The tender documents filed by the defendants would show that the PCA unit was in a housing which would map with feature 1.2. iii. Defendants’ operation and maintenance manual would show that they used a blower which would map with feature 1.3. iv. The defendants’unit would show a plurality of refrigeration systems in the operation and maintenance manual which would map with feature 1.[4] of the plaintiff's product. v. The defendants’operation and maintenance manual would show at least one variable frequency driver for power supply of at least one CS(COMM) 628/2023 17 of 71 compressor with each refrigerant circuit having a compressor which was VFD controlled. This would map with feature 1.[4] of the plaintiffs’ unit. vi. The defendants’ operation and maintenance manual in the ‘equipmentdescription’ and ‘cooling mode’ sections mentioned that the refrigeration circuits were connected to unit controls based upon a control architecture which could control how many circuits would operate and at whatlevel depending uponthe ambient and outlet air temperature sensors. This would map with feature 1.[5] of the vii. Defendants’ operation and maintenance manual while mentioning the variable frequency driver states that it controls and protects the compressor and its capacity based on the load requirement for maintainingoutputair temperature. This, according to the plaintiffs, maps to feature 1.[6] of the plaintiffs’ unit. viii. The automaticcontrolsin the defendant’s unit would determine how many circuits would operate and at what level, depending on input from ambientand air temperature sensors which maps to feature 1.[7] of the plaintiffs’ unit. The same would also map to feature 1.[8] of the

38. Similar mappingwas doneby the plaintiffs oftheir unit featureswith theRFP for Goa Airport,as thedefendants were successful in winning the tender. CS(COMM) 628/2023 18 of 71

39. It was asserted by Mr. Anand that their PCA unit allowed each refrigerationsystem to operateat different operatingconditions, enhancing its ability to deal with air having different air pressure and humidity. The VFD, therefore, achieved this purpose by being connected to each compressor in serial stages.

40. Plaintiffs had not intended to limit the scope of the claims to modularity and this was evident from the following: firstly, from independentclaim 1 of the suit patent, which does not mention modularity and; secondly, since the complete specification of the patent merely elaborated on modularembodimentas an example, but does not disclaim a non-modularembodiment. Paragraph 74 ofthe complete specification was pointed out to statethatno modular PCA units were part of the claims and the same is extracted as under: “[74] Other preconditioned air units may be provided within the scope of the appended claims. For example, other preconditioned air units may be provided that are not modular. Also, preconditioned air units may be provided with different numbers of refrigeration systems, such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 etc. refrigeration systems.”

41. On the issue of limitation, plaintiffs’ counsel relied upon various authorities which areenumerated as under, to essentially point out that it was improper to import a or “read-in” a limitation from the general discussion in specifications, embodiments and examples: CS(COMM) 628/2023 19 of 71 i. Donald S. Chisum, Chisum on Patents, A Treatise on the Law of Patentability, Validity and Infringement, Volume 5A ii. Conmark Communications, Inc. vs. Harris Corp, 156 F.3d,1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998) iii. Teleflex, Inc. vs. Ficosa N. America Corp. and Ors., 299 F. 3d 1313, 1327 (Fed Cir. 2002) iv. Terell on the Law of Patents, 17th Edition v. Glaverbel SA vs. British CoalCorp. and Another, [1995] R.P.C.

255.

42. Plaintiffs’ counsel, inter alia, also pointed out various decisions of this Court to assert that patent rights in respect of claims are broader than theembodimentsand thatthereadingofthe claim should not be restrictive and limited, but should be read purposively. These decisions are enumerated below: i. Ace Technologies Corp and Ors. vs. Communications Components Antenna Inc., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2082 (decision of the Division Bench) ii. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. vs. Cipla, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13619 (decision of the Division Bench) iii. CommunicationComponentsAntenna Inc. vs. Ace Technology Corp. and Ors., 2019:DHC:3323 (decision of the Single Judge) CS(COMM) 628/2023 20 of 71 iv. Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft vs. The Controller General of Patents and Designs, 2024: DHC: 2395 (decision of the Single Judge)

43. Withoutprejudice to the submission by plaintiffs’ counsel that the suit patentrelated to a non-modularPCA unit,it was further stated that the categorization wasirrelevantas claims ofthe suit patentwouldbe infringed both by a modular as well as a non-modular PCA unit.

44. It was submittedthatplaintiffs havesuffered irreparableharm having lost contracts for providingPCA units at severalairportsin India, including in Hyderabad, Goa and Delhi, claiming a loss of about US $ 6 million in sales revenue.

45. Defendants had chosen not to secure patents in India but secured US2014/0102125 A[1] in foreign jurisdictions through sister concerns such as Ipalco B.V., wherein thecontrolunit performed a function similar to the suit patent. Moreover, balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiffssincedefendantsfailed to comment on claim chart mappingwhich should, therefore, be presumed to be correct.

46. Defendantshavealso withheld detailsofthe infringingproducts from theCourt and havenot explainedwhy thePCA units do not infringethe suit patent. The defence of non-modularity was raised only in the written statement. Defendant no.4, which is the manufacturer of the defendants PCA units, has notadvanced any argumentsand therefore would also have to be restrained in this regard. CS(COMM) 628/2023 21 of 71

F. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

47. Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, counsel for defendants, effectively focused his submissions on the fact that despite the plaintiffs claim that their suit patentwas non-modular, theessentialfeatures oftheclaim related to modularity, which featureis not presentin the defendants’ unit, which is integrated and not modular. He highlighted the following aspects:

48. A PCA unit effectively uses the same mechanism as that of conventionalair conditioning system using the conventional refrigeration cycle which has been known since1800s. It is, therefore, incapableof being patentedunderSection 3(d)and Section 3(f) of thePatent Act, as it is using the very same technology in a different environment. The claim itself mirrored a conventional air conditioning unit.

49. What is claimed by the plaintiffs as the principal inventive step is only theVFD controlled by a centralmonitoringunit used for optimization.

50. PCA however was not an inventivestep as compared to earlier prior arts likean HVAC, and was a new namefor an already existingtechnology.

51. There were four essential elements of a PCA unit - plurality, modularity, refrigeration units and controller. The modularity of refrigerationsystems was well known in the prior art. Modularity was an essentialaspect,which thedefendants did not implement. The refrigeration units involvedcompressors, which is the basiccomponent in a refrigeration CS(COMM) 628/2023 22 of 71 cycle. Furthermore, VFD controllers were well known before the priority date and were employed in multiple systems.

52. On modularity, priorart WO/1986/000977 (13/2/1986) [“D6”] was relied upon, which mentions both modular constructions permitting additionalslavemodules to beadded to increasethecapacity andtheability to manageshutdown ofonemoduleusinga controlcircuit. The modularity enabled plugand playtypeoperationofindividualrefrigerationsystems. In a modular system, malfunctioning refrigeration unit could be replaced withoutthe need to shut down the entire system, while in a non-modular system the entire unit has to be shut down for repair and maintenance. Plaintiffs’ earlier patentIN ‘952 had modularity and the suit patent is also essentially modular in its scope.

53. VFD compressors were well known before the priority date of the suit patentand wereemployed in multiple refrigeration systems. For this, defendants counsel relied upon Prior Art US7207183 [“D14”].

54. To assert its claim around modularity of the plaintiffs’ unit, defendantscounsel highlighted partsofthe specificationsof the suit patent that clearly mentioned that the plurality of refrigeration systems were implemented in a modular fashion; the said extracts are as under: “[47] Each of the self-contained cooling modules 36 can be installed in the housing 12 of the main unit without interfering with the refrigeration system of the module 36 so that assembly and possible disassembly of selfcontained cooling modules 36 in the pre-conditioned air unit housing 12 can be performed by persons without CS(COMM) 628/2023 23 of 71 specific skills in the field of refrigeration systems. The self-contained cooling modules 36 may be manufactured at one site particularly suitable for manufacturing of refrigeration systems for subsequent integration with housings 12 of the main unit at a separate site particularly suitable for manufacturing flexibility and decreasing manufacturing cost of the preconditioned air unit without having to perform the cumbersome task of emptying the preconditioned air unit for refrigerant is made possible.”

55. Defendantscounselrelied uponthedecision in Allergan Inc. vs. The Controller of Patents, C.A (Comm IPD-PAT) 22/2021 to assert that the claims would have to be read in the light of specifications and the claims and accompanyingspecificationscould not bedichotomized. In this regard, other decisions relied upon were: Edward H. Philips vs. AWH Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc. and Lofton Corporation, 415 F. 3d 1303; Nature Simulation Systems Inc vs. Autodesk, Inc., 23 F.4th 1334; Nautilus Inc. vs. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S 898 (2014).

56. It was also highlighted that, as for the plaintiffs, the problems in the priorart werecost, efficiency, flexibility and serviceability. In order for the suit patentto providean answerto these problems, it had to be a modular PCA unit with a VFD compressor anda centralcontroller and therefore, the plaintiff'sargumentthat theclaims of the suit patent were non-modular is not sustainable.

57. It was further argued that the suit patent is invalid on the following grounds: firstly, obviousness and lack of inventive step under Section 64 (1)(f); secondly, double patenting under Section 64 (1)(j) as also under CS(COMM) 628/2023 24 of 71 Section 53(4); thirdly, non-complianceofSection as per Section 64 (1)(m) was placed; and fourthly, it was submitted that the suit patent is not patentable under Section 64 (1)(k) read with Section 3(d) and 3(f) of the Patents Act.

58. Defendants’ counsel submitted that the PCA units were well discovered in the prior arts and reliance was placed on prior arts: US4835977 (6/6/1989) [“D2”] and US7461516B[2].

59. Multipleand modular refrigeration systems werepresent in prior art D[6] well as DE202008002015U[1] (29/05/2008) [“D20”].

60. To the plaintiffs’ contentionthat the prior arts were non-analogous, defendants counsel relied on the KSR International Company v Teleflex Inc. Et Al., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).

61. It was submitted that the suit patent was a new use of a known apparatus which was notpatentableunder Section3(d)of the Patent Act or was merely an arrangement of known devices and, therefore, was not patentable under Section 3(f) of the Patent Act.

62. Defendantsalso alleged that plaintiffs engaged in double patenting, since they filed two patent applications, one resulting in IN ‘952 and the second in thesuit patent. Accordingto thedefendants, the specifications of the two patents were similar, and they essentially dealt with the same invention, same implementation, and providing the same solution to the same problem. Diagrammatic figures used for the two patents were also similar, as also theworkingstatements. It was submittedthatonly onestray CS(COMM) 628/2023 25 of 71 line of modularity has been added to the suit patent, which is to be disregarded, since the specifications do not teach non-modularity. It was alleged that theplaintiffs misrepresented the Patent Office and, therefore, thesuit patent wasliableto be revoked under Section 64. Reliance for this was placed on decisions in F. Hoffman-LARoche Ltd. and Anr. vs. Cipla Ltd., 2009 (110) DRJ 452 (DB), Glaverbel S.A. vs. Dave Rose & Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 308, and Sotefin SA vs. Indraprastha Cancer Society and Research Center & Ors., 2024: DHC: 2154. It was submitted that double patenting makes the patent vulnerable and invalid.

G. SUBMISSIONS IN REJOINDER

63. Mr. Anand submittedin rejoinder that the main problem which was being solved by the suit patent was not serviceability, but of control and management of the life of the compressor and ability to adjust cooling, depending on ambient conditions.

64. It was statedthat the invention in the suit patent was neutral to the issue of modularity (reference was made to paragraph [74] of the specifications), and it was only the cooling modules that were “selfcontained”. Further, it was submitted that sincetheclaim did not limit itself to modularity, it essentially covered all options of modularity and nonmodularity.

65. Plaintiff's counselalso stated thatthe challenge to the validity of the suit patentby thedefendants wasfancifuland not credible, since weightage had to be given to the Patent Office havinggrantedthepatentafter scrutiny. CS(COMM) 628/2023 26 of 71

66. Reliance was placed on thedecision of Division Bench of the Court in Intex Technologies vs. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, 2023: DHC: 2243 in particular on para 129 thereof.

67. On the issuethat therewas lack of inventive step in the suit patent, the plaintiffs’ counsel relied upon the decision in Avery Dennison Corporationvs. Controller of Patents and Designs, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3659, which summarizes variousprinciples and approaches for determining whether a patentlacks an inventivestep,as also on theextract from a book on patentlaw authored by JusticePrathibaM. Singh. it was argued that the startingpointofan inventive step analysis is to determine the state of the art at thetime theinvention was conceived, andwhetheron thepriority date of the plaintiff’s patent, a person skilled in the art would have thought it was obvious, given the technology prevalent and the common general knowledge, to have a central controller regulate multiple VFD run compressors on each refrigeration system.

68. It was submittedthatthedefendants defence on obviousness or lack of inventive step, therefore, had to fail as: firstly, the defendant had to combine20 prior artsofdifferent technicalfields to statethatthesuit patent lacked inventive step, which was contrary to the principle enunciated in Prism Cement Limited vs. Controller of Patents and Designs, 2020 SCC OnLine IPAB 25, wherein para 32, it was observedthatgreater thenumber of documentswhich mustbecombined to reach theinvention, higher is the likelihood that it has an inventive step; secondly, defendants failed to identify a person skilled in the art; thirdly, defendants claim that CS(COMM) 628/2023 27 of 71 conventional air conditioning was already covered is not borne out since PCA and HVAC units are not comparable; fourthly, defendants could not justify as to how its own sister concern Ipalco B.V. filed the US patent US2014/0102125 A[1] (wherein thecontrolunit performed a functionsimilar to the suit patent.) 2 years after theprioritydate of the suit patent and was granted protection in the United States on 2nd February, 2020 (later assigned in the name of defendant no. 2.)

69. On mosaicing, Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, counsel for plaintiffs, countered by stating that it was legitimate to establish prior art through mosaicing, to which Mr. Anand stated that mosaic applies if one prior art links to another prior art.

70. Furthermore, it was submitted that reference to an old prior art of conventional refrigeration system cannot lead to an inference that it was obvious. Thepassageofat least 23 years sincethe prior art D[6] shows that theinvention was notobviousand reliancewas placed on Avery Dennison (supra) for this assertion.

71. It was statedthatin theprior art US7207183 (13/10/2005) the VFD was linked to a compressor in parallel whereas in the plaintiffs’ case the VFD was connected to all the compressors.

72. On the issue of double patenting raised by defendants, it was submitted thatthereis no mention of thesamein the Patents Act. However, the closest reflection of the concept would be in Section 64 (1)(a) and Section 13 (1)(b). It was further submitted that the scope of independent CS(COMM) 628/2023 28 of 71 claim 1 was significantly different and covered different aspectsofthe PCA units. IN ‘952 covered mechanical arrangements of refrigeration systems, that is, compartments and configuration of the compartments in the PCA unit. Furthermore, the two patents have the same priority date, and therefore, plaintiffs cannot be accused of evergreening.

73. Moreover,theFirst Examination Reportissued by the Controller on 16th October, 2017indicated that therewereseparateexaminationreportsof both the inventions on the same date and therefore, there was no misrepresentation or suppression by the plaintiffs, the Patent Office being clearly awareof both theinventionswhich had been independentlysecured.

74. Lastly, plaintiffs’ counselsubmitted thatdefendants’ contention that invalidity would also be on account of Section 3(d) and 3(f) of the Patent Act was not sustainablesince thepatentwasnot a process claim and also it was not a mere arrangement or rearrangement or duplication of devices functioning independently “in a known way”.

H. ANALYSIS

75. Heard counsel for parties, and perused the material on record.

76. Plaintiffs claim that defendants’PCA unit infringes theplaintiffs suit patent IN ‘I45, which is for a PCA unit with at least one VFD, supervised by a controller that is configured for variation of the output frequency. Plaintiffs specifically assert thatthey arenot claimingmonopoly over PCA units, which wereknown in theart, and that it is the presence of VFDs for CS(COMM) 628/2023 29 of 71 at least two compressors which distinguishes the suit patent. Therefore, plaintiffs’ relief for infringement is based on this distinguishing feature.

77. For thepurposes of further analysis, independent claim no.1 of the suit patentis extracted below (with parts of characterization underscored since it forms the crux of the invention; reference may be made to Guala Closures SPA v. AGI Greenpac Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3510, a decision rendered by Justice Prathiba M Singh on 8th May 2024): “A preconditioned air unit (10) for supplying preconditioned air to an aircraft parked on the ground, the preconditioned air unit comprising: a housing (12) accommodating a flow duct (20) with an air inlet for ambient air and an air outlet for connection to the parked aircraft; a blower (30) connected with the flow duct (20) for generation of an air flow from the air inlet (22) toward the air outlet (25); a plurality of refrigeration systems (36), wherein each refrigeration system comprises: at least one expansion valve (42); at least one evaporator (44) connected in a flow circuit containing a refrigerant, and wherein the at least one evaporator (44) interacts with the air flow in the flow duct (20); and at least one variable frequency driver (46, 54, 56) for power supply of the at least one compressor (38); and the housing (12) further accommodates a central controller (60) that is configured for controlling operation of the preconditioned air unit (10) including the variable frequency drivers (46, 54, 56)of the plurality of refrigeration systems (36), characterized in that: CS(COMM) 628/2023 30 of 71 the at least one variable frequency driver (46, 54, 56) has a controller that is configured for variation of the output frequency of the at least one variable frequency driver (46, 54, 56); and the central controller (60) is connected to at least one controller of the at least one variable frequency driver (46, 54, 56); wherein the central controller (60) automatically adjusts the cooling performed by the preconditioned air unit (10) to at least one of: the selected type of aircraft, the ambient temperature, the humidity, the cabin temperature, the outgoing temperature and the outgoing airflow from the preconditioner air unit (10).”

78. The essential feature-wise breakdown of claim 1 as provided by plaintiffs is again reproduced as under for ease of reference: Feature 1.[1] A preconditioned air unit (10) for supplying preconditioned air to an aircraftparked on the ground, the preconditioned air unit comprising: Feature 1.[2] a housing(12)accommodatinga flow duct(20)with an air inlet for ambient air and an air outlet for connection to the parked aircraft. Feature 1.[3] a blower (30) connected with the flow duct (20) for generation ofan air flow from the air inlet (22) toward the air outlet (25). Feature 1.[4] a plurality of refrigeration systems (36), wherein each refrigeration system comprises: at least one expansionvalve (42); at least one evaporator (44) connected in a flow circuit containing a CS(COMM) 628/2023 31 of 71 refrigerant, and wherein the at least one evaporator (44) interacts with the air flow in the flow duct (20); and at least one variablefrequency driver (46, 54, 56) for power supply of the at least one compressor (38); and Feature 1.[5] thehousing(12)further accommodates a centralcontroller (60) that is configured for controlling operation of the preconditioned air unit (10) including the variable frequency drivers (46, 54, 56) of the plurality of refrigeration systems (36), characterized in that Feature 1.[6] at least one variable frequency driver (46;54;56) has a controller that is configured for variation of the output frequency of theat least one variablefrequency driver(46, 54, 56) Feature 1.[7] and thecentralcontroller (60) is connected to at least one controller of the at least one variable frequency driver (46;54;56). Feature 1.[8] wherein the central controller (60) automatically adjusts thecooling performed by the preconditioned air unit (10) to at least one of: the selected typeof aircraft, the ambient temperature, the humidity, the cabin temperature, the outgoing temperature and the outgoing airflow from the preconditioned air unit (10)

79. The crux of the suit patent was to supply preconditioned air using ambient air through multiple refrigeration systems, controlled through a central controller, which manages the VFDs attached to the compressor. CS(COMM) 628/2023 32 of 71 The job of the centralcontroller was to automatically adjust the cooling of thePCA unit depending on the type of aircraft, the ambient temperature, humidity, cabin temperature etc.

80. This was an improvement on a conventional PCA unit which was directly connected to themain powersupply and was therefore, limited by it. Per the suit patent, the compressor, which is the heart and soul of a refrigeration unit, was driven by the VFD, allowing adjustment to the compressor’s operating speed, depending on the variable cooling requirements. While the VFD controlled a compressor, the VFDs in turn were connected to a central controller, which would do the job of management of various refrigeration units, allowing each of the refrigerationunitsto functionindependently at varying capacities to adjust to the external requirements.

81. The plaintiffs claimed that defendants have been selling PCA units, which infringe the suit patent and have bid in tenders floated by the government, since2020, including on tenders floated for airports at Goa, Hyderabad and Delhi.

82. According to plaintiffs, defendants were put to notice of the infringement of the plaintiffs’ patent in UK, and in India. However, defendants remained evasive in their response. Subsequently, in March 2023, pre-litigationmediation wasinitiated by theplaintiffs. As theattempt at mediation was unsuccessful, plaintiffs filed the present suit. Therefore, the instant application for interim relief has been pressed by plaintiffs. CS(COMM) 628/2023 33 of 71

83. For thepurposesof claiming infringement, first the claims are to be constructed and, thereafter, the claims are to be compared with the defendants’ product.

84. For constructionofclaims, various judicial tests have been adopted to interpret the patent specifications and claims, inter alia the pith and marrow test, the test of purposive construction etc. This aspect will be adverted to a bit later.

85. As regards thesecond step ofcomparison, if substantive elements of claims can be found in thedefendants’product through direct comparison or other methods,thedefendants’productwould be deemed to infringe the patent. Essentially, the defendant's product has to be compared with the claims of the patent to establish infringement. For the purposes of comparison, trivial variations do not matter. The Court has to make an assessment that the defendant's product is producing the same effect (reference be made to RX Prism Health Systems Private Limited v Canva Private Limited and Others, 2023 SCC Online Del 4186).

(i) Claim Construction

86. Let us first deal with the first issue of claim construction.

87. The rival contentions on claim construction hinge on the issue of modularity of the PCA units. On one hand, defendants submit that the claims ought not to be constructed in isolationfrom the specifications; and when constructedthrough theprism ofthe specifications, the claims of the suit patentimportan essentialelement of modularity to the invention, and CS(COMM) 628/2023 34 of 71 therefore, at the very threshold, there is no infringement, since the defendants’product is non-modular. To this, plaintiffs’counselasserts that the claims have to be given their ordinary and plain meaning, and that “reading-in” a limitation into the claim through the specifications is impermissible. Plaintiffs contend that nowhere in the claims, read as they are, is there a claim of modularity, and the claims when read with the specifications are agnostic to the concept of non-modularity.

88. As per the plaintiff, the essential feature of the suit patent is the ability of the PCA unit to automatically adjust cooling performance, according to at least one of the conditions i.e. type of aircraft, ambient temperature, humidity, cabin temperature, outgoing temperature, and outgoing airflow from the PCA unit. This was achieved by driving the compressorthrough a VFD, and in turn controllingthevariouscompressors with VFDs by a central controller.

89. A bareperusal ofclaim 1 of the suit patentshowsthattheclaim is for a PCA unit comprising a housing, with a blower, and a plurality of refrigerationsystems. Each ofthe refrigeration systems comprises at least one compressor, at least one condenser, at least one expansion valve, at least one evaporator, and at least one VFD, which in turn is controlled by a central controller.

90. In itself, claim 1 does not speakofmodularity. Modularityessentially involves using a modular system, in that, sets of components can be attachedor detached, withoutdisturbingtheother components.Importantly, CS(COMM) 628/2023 35 of 71 the other patent granted to the plaintiffs, being IN ‘952, with the same priority date, seems to in fact specifically advert to modularity.

91. The suit patent, on theother hand, focuses on the aspect of the VFD attachedto thecompressor andthemanagementofvarious VFD’s through a central controller. The comparative between claim no. 1 of the two patents is provided by plaintiff and extracted as under: Claims of IN’ 145

1. A preconditionedair unit (10) for supplying preconditioned air to an air to an aircraft parked on the ground, the preconditioned air unit comprising: a housing (12) accommodating a flow duct (20) with an air inlet for ambient air and air outlet for connection to the parked aircraft; a blower (30)connected with a flow duct (20) for generation of an air flow from the air inlet (22) toward the air outlet (25); a plurality of refrigeration systems (36), wherein each refrigeration system comprises: at least one expansion valve (42); at least one evaporator (44) Claims of IN’ 952

1. A preconditionedair unit (10) for supplying preconditioned air to an aircraft parkedon the ground, thepreconditioned air unit (10) comprising a main unit with a housing (12) accommodating a flow duct (20) with an air inlet (22) for ambient air an and an air outlet (25) for connection to the parked aircraft, a blower (30) connected with the flow duct (20) for generation of an air flow from theair inlet (22)towardtheair outlet (25) and a plurality of compartments (34), each of which is configured for accommodation of a self-contained cooling module (36) comprising: at least one refrigeration system, CS(COMM) 628/2023 36 of 71 connected in a flow circuit containinga refrigerant, and wherein the at least one evaporator (44) interactswith theair flow duct (20); and at least one variable frequency driver (46, 54, 56)for power supply of the at least one compressor (38); and the housing (12) further accommodates a central controller 60 that is configured for controlling operation of the preconditioned air unit (10) including the variable frequency drivers(46, 54, 56) of the plurality of refrigeration systems (36), characterized in that: the at least onevariable frequency driver (46, 54, 56) has a controller that is configured for variation of the output frequency of the at least one variable frequency driver (46, 54, 56); and the central controller (60) is connected to at least one controller of the at least one variable frequency driver (46, 54, 56); wherein the central controller (60) automatically adjusts the cooling performed by the preconditioned air unit (10) to at least one of: the selected type of aircraft, the ambient temperature, the humidity, the cabin temperature, the outgoing each of which includes at least one compressor (38), at least one condenser (40), at least one expansion valve (42), and at least one evaporator (44) connected in a flow circuit containing a refrigerant, and wherein each compartment is configured so that the at least one evaporator (44) interacts with the air flow in the flow duct (20) when the selfcontained cooling module (36) is installed in the compartment, and wherein at least one self-contained cooling module (36) is installed in the plurality of compartments (34). CS(COMM) 628/2023 37 of 71 temperature and the outgoing airflow from the preconditioned air unit (10).

92. Ex facie, it seems that while IN ‘952 focuses on the mechanical arrangement i.e. modularity, the suit patent relates to the electrical and functionalaspectsof a PCA unit. Prima facie this Court is agreeable with theplaintiffon this assessment. However, defendants’ submission that the specifications ofthesuit patentessentially point to modularity and claims have to be construed in that light, needs to be examined in some detail.

93. Defendants point out to the use of the phrase “plurality of refrigeration systems” in claim 1 and submit that the reference numeral “36” used in the claim has been referred to as a “self-contained cooling module” throughout the specifications. In particular, attention has been drawn towards specifications [47], [49], and [51], which are extracted as under: “[47] Each of the self-contained cooling modules 36 can be installed in the housing 12 of the main unit without interfering with the refrigeration system of the module 36 so that assembly and possible disassembly of selfcontained cooling modules36 in the pre- conditioned air unit housing 12 can be performed by persons without specific skills in the field of refrigeration systems. The self-contained cooling modules 36 may be manufactured at one site particularly suitable for manufacturing of CS(COMM) 628/2023 38 of 71 refrigeration systems for subsequent integration with housings 12 of the main unit at a separate site particularly suitable for manufacturingofairport ground equipment in general thereby increasing manufacturing flexibility and decreasing manufacturing cost of the preconditioned air unit 10. Further, the self-contained cooling module 36 may be stored as a spare part including the refrigerant, whereby repair of a preconditioned air unit without having to perform the cumbersometask of emptying the preconditioned air unit for refrigerant is made possible. [49] Preferably, the self-contained cooling modules 36 are removablyinstalled in the housing 12 ofthe main unit facilitating separation of an installed self-contained cooling modulefrom the housing 12, e.g. utilizing screws, nuts and bolts for fastening each of the self-contained cooling modules 36 to the housing 12 and utilizing electrical connectors (not shown) to establish the required electrical interconnections between the cooling moduleand the housing 12 when the cooling module36 is inserted in the housing 12 of the main unit 10. [51] The removability of the modules 36 enhances the serviceability of the preconditioned air unit 10 since a possible malfunctioning self-contained cooling module can be separated from the housing 12 ofthe main unit 10 and replaced with a functioning module 36 with a minimum ofdown time of the preconditioned air unit 10. One cooling module36 can be replaced in approximately 20 minutes. In the event that a functioning cooling module 36 is not available for substitution of the malfunctioningcooling module36, the preconditioned air unit 10 will continue operation with the remaining cooling modules 36 i.e. the preconditioned air unit 10 remains fully operational, however with a lowered cooling capacity. Further, the malfunctioning module 36 can be moved for repair at a separate site particularly CS(COMM) 628/2023 39 of 71 suitable for repair of refrigeration systems. Also, the possible requirement of dismounting and moving the entire preconditioned air unit for repair of a cooling circuit is hereby reduced. Preferably, the self-contained cooling module 36 has physical dimensions suitable for movement by a fork lift truck 47 as illustrated in Fig. 4 facilitating transportation of the module 36, e.g. for storage, assembly into a preconditioned air unit 10, and service. For example, a malfunctioning module 36 can be removed from the housing 12 with a fork lift truck 47 and a properly functioning module36 can be installed in the housing 12 with a fork lift truck 47.”

94. To this, plaintiff’scounselhas drawnattention to paragraph [74] of thespecifications, which specifically provides that other preconditioned air units may beprovidedin the scopeofthe appended claims, including ones which are not modular.On this basis, theplaintiffs claim that the complete specificationmerely elaboratesa modularembodiment as an example, but does not disclaim a non-modular embodiment. Paragraph [74] of the specifications is extracted below: “[74] Other preconditioned air units may be provided within the scope of the appended claims. For example, other preconditioned air units may be provided that are not modular. Also, preconditioned air units may be provided with different numbers of refrigeration systems, such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 etc. refrigeration systems.” (emphasis added)

95. The additionalargument ofthe defendants is relatable to paragraph [4] of the specifications wherein the problem stated to be solved by the CS(COMM) 628/2023 40 of 71 invention is of cost, efficiency, flexibility and serviceability of PCA units. This, thedefendantssubmit, can only be resolved by an apparatus which is modularin nature. Paragraph [4] of the specifications is extracted below: “[4] Cost, efficiency, flexibility, and serviceability remain an issue in known preconditioned air units.”

96. Even though, variousspecifications do refer to thePCA containing a self-contained cooling module in their respective compartments (see for examplespecification [18], [33], [46], [48], [49], [51], reference may also be made to specification [41] where it is stated that the invention can be embodied in different forms and should not be construed as limited to the embodiments set forth herein. Paragraph [41] of the specifications is produced below: “[41] The present invention will now be described more fully hereinafter with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which exemplary embodiments of the invention are shown. The invention may, however, be embodied in different forms and should not be construed as limited to the embodiments set forth herein. Rather, these embodiments were provided so that this disclosure will be thorough and complete, and will fully convey the scope of the invention to those skilled in the art.”

97. It is also apparent from the reading of the specifications that the predominantaspect ofthesuit patent is of a compressor being driven by a VFD and details various aspects of how a VFD would control the respective compressors, as well as the central controller configured for controlling the operation. In this regard, reference may be made to CS(COMM) 628/2023 41 of 71 specifications [8]- [12], [15]-[17],[21]-[23],[25], [55]-[58], [60]-[62], [67]- [69].

98. Plaintiffs’ counsel’ssubmission thatthe fundamentalprinciple is not to “read in” or importstructuraland functional limitations in the claim, or cut down or extend theclear meaningor languageof the claim by reference to the body of specifications, and the reliance on Chisum on Patents, Terrell on the Law of Patents, 17th Edition, and Glaverbel SA vs. British Coal Corp (supra) appeals to this Court.

99. Chisum on Patents categorically proscribes the importation of limitationsfrom thegeneraldiscussion, embodiments and examples in the specifications. In this regard, the following extract is relevant: “[A] Reading In or Importing Structural and Functional Limitations Into a Claim. The first caveat is that it is improper to import (i.e. “read in”) a limitation from the specification’s general discussion, embodiments and examples. Further, “[g]eneral descriptive terms will ordinarily be given their full meaning; modifiers will not be added to broad terms standing alone. This caveat bars the “reading in” of functional or process limitations as well as structural ones. Thus, it has been held improper to read a limitation on how an apparatuswas used into a claim to the apparatus. Ora limitation on how a claimed structure was manufactured. On the other hand, an express structural limitation on a claim may be properly defined by reference to functional characteristics.”

100. Terrell on the Law of Patents echoes the same principle when it comes to claim construction, andstates thatit is not legitimate to cut down or extend the clear meaning of the claim. In coming to this conclusion, CS(COMM) 628/2023 42 of 71 reliance was placed on the decision in Glaverbel SA vs. British Coal Corp (supra) where the Court held that a patent is to be construed objectively, through theeyes of a skilled addressee. TheCourt also held that the whole document must beread together,the body ofspecificationswith the claims. But if the claim is clear, the monopoly sought by the patentee cannot be extended or cut down by reference to the rest of the specifications and the subsequent conduct is not available to aid the interpretation of a written document.

101. These aspects have also been recognized by the Division Bench of this Courtin Ace Technologies (supra), when it observes that patent rights arein respect oftheclaims and arebroaderthanthepreferred embodiments in the following paragraph:

CS(COMM) 628/2023 43 of 71 description of the invention is, but first to read the description of the invention, in order that the mind may be prepared for what it is, that the invention is to be claimed, for the patentee cannot claim more than he desires to patent. In Parkinson v. Simon, [(1894)11 RPC 483]Lord Esher, M.R. enumerated thatas far as possible the claims must be so construed as to give an effective meaning to each of them, but the specification and the claims must be looked at and construed together.”

44. The claims cannotbe read in isolation. It is necessary that the same be read in the context of specifications and the description of the patent. There is no dispute that the specifications and description of the patent are necessary for interpreting and understanding the claims. However, the specifications cannot broaden the claim. As stated above, the monopoly that the Patents Act grants is in respect of the specific claims and not the preferred embodiments.”

102. A clear enunciationofthe nuanced assessment required during claim construction is provided by the United States Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit)in Conmark Communications (supra) where it was stated as part of the discussion that: “we recognize that there is sometimes a fine line between reading a claim in light of the specification, and reading a limitation into the claim from the specification”.

103. The defendants attemptto distinguish theseauthorities anddecisions, areunmerited. It was essentially asserted that a purposive construction of theclaim must beadopted, and that such construction of the claim would result in interpreting the claimed term “plurality of refrigeration systems” CS(COMM) 628/2023 44 of 71 to be modularly interpreted, as that is the only embodiment sufficiently disclosed and enabled in the specification, while the non-modular embodiment was not “enabled”. However, this argument may not be sustainable. As statedabove, theclaim along with the specifications, seem to focus on the application of the VFD to the compressor, the variable controlling factor, and the overall central controller. The plurality of refrigerationsystems as claimed, does not in itself assert modularity and, therefore, the claims would have to be seen as granted and it would be improperto read a critical limitation into the claims. As noted above, the difference with IN ‘952 is also dispositivein this regard, where modularity has been specifically claimed.

104. In any case, defendantshavebeen unableto present any evidence of thefact that their PCA unit is non-modularin nature. The only submission canvassed beforetheCourtwasthat thesuit for infringement was not filed in relation to plaintiffs’ patent IN ‘952 because defendants PCA unit was non-modular in nature. However, no prima facie evidence has been presented in this regard. (ii)Invalidity of the Suit Patent and credible challenge a. Lack of an inventive step

105. Havingaccepted prima facie, theplaintiffs’ position that the claims are ‘agnostic’ to modularity and focus only on the VFD plus central controller, the defendants primary challenge then, as categorically CS(COMM) 628/2023 45 of 71 submitted,is that thesuit patent ought to be revoked for being invalid due to lack of an inventivestep and for being obvious in light of the prior art.

106. In this context, relyinguponthedecisions in Glaverbel S.A. vs. Dave Rose &Ors., 2010 SCC OnLineDel 308, and F. Hoffman – LA Roche Ltd. & Anr. vs. Cipla Ltd., 2009 (110) DRJ 452 (DB), and Sulphur Mills Limited vs. Shree Ram Agro India & Ors. 2024: DHC: 2154, defendants argue that if there exists a credible challenge to the validity of the suit patent, interim injunction cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiff.

107. Relying upon the decision in F. Hoffman – LA Roche (supra), another Division Bench of this Court in Natco Pharma vs. Novartis AG and Another, 2024 SCC OnLineDel 3064, recently expounded the law on this subject. According to the said decision, in order to raise a credible challenge to the validity of the suit patent, the defendant needs to merely show thatthepatentis vulnerable to being invalidated. Unless such credible challenge is made, the questionas to validityofthesuit patentis required to be determined at thestageof trial. Relevant observations in Natco Pharma (supra) are extracted below:

CS(COMM) 628/2023 46 of 71 invalid, it has to merely show that the patent is vulnerable. If the challenge raised to the validity is substantial, the threshold standard for resisting an interim injunction in this regard - subject to other relevant considerations-would bemet. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Courtin F. Hoffmann-LA Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd.7. In the said case, the Division Bench had rejected the contention that the defendant had a heavy burden to discharge and would have to establish a stronger prima facie case than the plaintiff. TheDivision Bench had also not accepted the contention that since there is a multilevel examination of opposition to the grant of patent, it oughtto be accorded the highest weightage. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below:

CS(COMM) 628/2023 47 of 71 TherapeuticsInc., 66 IPR 325 it was held that where the validity of a patentis raised in interlocutory proceedings, “the onus lies on the party asserting invalidity to show that want of validity is a triable question.” In Abbot Laboratories v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals Inc. (decision dated 22nd June 2006 of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 05-1433) the Court of Appeals followed its earlier ruling in Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-LokLtd., 208 F.3d 1339whereit was held (at 1359):“In resisting a preliminary injunction, however, oneneed not make outa case of actual invalidity. Vulnerability is the issue at the preliminary injunction stage, while validity is the issue at trial. The showing of a substantial question as to invalidity thus requires less proof than the clear and convincing showing necessary to establish invalidity itself.” (emphasis supplied) In Erico Int'llCorprn v. VutecCorprn (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2007-1168)it was held that the “defendant must put forth a substantial question of invalidity to show that the claims at issue are vulnerable.”

54. In the present case, the grant of a patent to the plaintiffs for Erlotinib Hydrochloride as a mixture of PolymorphsA and B will not ipso facto entitle them to an interim injunction if the defendant is able to satisfy the court that there is a serious question to be tried as to the validity of the patent. The use by the learned SingleJudge of the expressions “strong credible challenge”, “arguable case” or that the defendants claim being not unfounded, cannot be termed as vague and inconsistent since they convey the same meaning in the context of the strength of the defendant's challenge.

55. The question before this Court is when can it be said that the defendant has raised a credible challenge to the validity of a patentheld by the plaintiff in an infringement action? During the course of the argument it was CS(COMM) 628/2023 48 of 71 suggested by counsel that the challenge had to be both strong and credible. Also, the defendant resisting the grant of injunction by challenging the validity of the patent is at this stage required to show that the patent is “vulnerable” and that the challenge raises a “serious substantial question” and a triable issue. Without indulging in an exercise in semantics, the Court when faced with a prayer for grant of injunction and a corresponding plea of the defendant challenging the validity of the patent itself must enquire whether the defendant has raised a credible challenge. In other words, that would in the context of pharmaceutical products, invite scrutiny of the order granting patent in the light of Section 3(d) and the grounds set out in Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. At this stage of course the Courtis not expected to examine the challenge in any great detail and arrive at a definite finding on the question of validity. That will have to await the trial. At the present stage of considering the grant of an interim injunction, the defendanthasto show that the patent that has been granted is vulnerable to challenge. Consequently, this Court rejects the contentions of the plaintiffs on this issue and affirms the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge”

44. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Astrazeneca AB v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.In the said case, the learned Single Judge rejected the contention that since the suit patents were old, they should be presumed to be valid. The learned Single Judge did so for two reasons. First, the learned Single Judge found - much like in the present appeal where it is the stated case that ELT-O is covered underboth IN' 176 and the suit patentIN' 161 - that there was an overlap in the genus patent and the species patent. And second, that the presumption of validity exists only till such time the patent is challenged and the CS(COMM) 628/2023 49 of 71 challenge is credible. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below:

45. The appealagainstthesaid decision was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court as being without any merit. CS(COMM) 628/2023 50 of 71

46. In the present case, the learned SingleJudge held that even if a prima facie ground for revocation is made out, revocation is notautomaticas the patent authorityretains discretion not to revoke the patent if not absolutely necessary. And, the vulnerability to revocation must also be adjudged on the same standard. The learned Single Judgealso concluded thatthis standard is therefore, high rather than low. It was further observed that the credible challenge occupies a higher pedestal than challenge, which is merely worthy of consideration. The learned Single Judge held that “When an infringer seeks to defend infringement on the ground that the patent he infringes is invalid, the onus, to prove such invalidity heavily lies on him. This standard has to be met, when applying the principle of “credibility””. The standard as articulated in the impugned judgmentis in clear variance with the decision of the Division Bench of this court in F. Hoffmann-LA RocheLtd. v. Cipla Ltd.7. In the said case, the Division Bench had expressly rejected the contention that the defendant has a heavy burden to discharge as it has to establish a stronger prima facie case. It is apparent that in the present case, the learned Single Judge has applied a higher standard for examining whether a credible challenge to the validity of a patent is made out, than as explained by the Division Bench. In effect, the learned Single Judge has read in a presumption as to the validity of the patent, where none exists. Obviously, a challenge to a patent, that is insubstantial, would be wholly insufficient to resist an order of interdiction. However, if a prima facie ground of revocation is madeout, the threshold standard ofcredible challenge is met notwithstanding the discretion vested with the patent authority in regard to revocation of the patent. The fact that the patent authority may have the discretion not to revoke the patent despite a ground for the same being established, is not a relevant consideration for granting an interim injunction CS(COMM) 628/2023 51 of 71 restraining the infringement of a patent on the ground that the defendanthasnot met the threshold standard ofa credible challengeto the validity of the patent, if a prima facie ground for revoking the patent is made out.

47. If the defendantraises a substantial challenge, which merits a trial, the question whether an injunction oughtto be granted would necessarily have to be determined on other considerations for grant of such injunctions including balance of convenience and irreparable harm.

108. In order to analyse whether there is a credible challenge to the validity ofthesuit patent,it is required to be seen whether the submission as to lack of inventivestep meritsany considerationin thefacts of the case. Section 2(1) (ja) of the Act defines ‘inventive step’ as under: “(ja) “inventive step” means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and thatmakes the invention not obviousto a person skilled in the art.”

109. A Single Bench of this Court in Avery Dennison (supra), summarized thedifferent approachesfollowed by Courts over the years to determine whether the suit patent lacks an inventive step. In order to analysewhether a credible challenge to the validity of the suit patent has been raised by thedefendant,and whether thesuit patentlacks an inventive step, reference may be made to the following paragraphs from Avery Dennison (supra): CS(COMM) 628/2023 52 of 71

CS(COMM) 628/2023 53 of 71

15. The tests laid down in Windsurfing (supra) were again considered by the England and Wales Court of Appealsin Pozzoli Spa v. BDMO SA, [2006]EWHC 1398 (Ch) and modified by Jacob LJ as under:

CS(COMM) 628/2023 54 of 71 skilled in the art and rule out a hindside approach”

17. Further, this Courtin Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings (supra) hassummarised some of the principles which can be used determine whetheran invention is obviousor not. The said principles are: “(i) A hindsight reconstruction by using the patent in question as a guide through the maze of prior art references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claim in the suit, is required to be avoided.

(ii) The patent challenger must demonstrate the selection of a lead compound based on its promising useful properties and not a hindsight driven search for structurally similar compounds.

(iii) There should be no teachingsawayfrom the patentin question in the prior art.

(iv) Mere structural similarity cannot form the basis of selection of lead compound in a prior art and the structural similarity in the prior art document must give reason or motivation to make the claim composition.

(v) Thoughmosaicof prior art documentsmay be done in order to claim obviousness, however, in doing so, the party claiming obviousness must be able to demonstrate not only the prior art exists but how the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine the relevant components from the mosaic of prior art.

(vi) It has to be borne in mind, small changes in structures can have unpredictable pharmacological effects and thus, structural similarity alone is not sufficient to motivate to selection of the lead compound.

(vii) Though it would be tempting to put together a combination of prior arts but this requires a significant degree of hindsight, both in selection of relevant disclosures from these documents and also in disregarding the irrelevant or unhelpful teachings in them.” … CS(COMM) 628/2023 55 of 71

20. This Court in the case of Agriboard International

LLC. v. Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs [C.A.(COMM. IPD-PAT) 4/2022 dated 31st March, 2022]held that while rejecting an application for lack of inventive step, discussion on the prior art, the subject invention and manner in which the subject invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art would be mandatory. Merely arriving at a bare conclusion that the subject invention lacks inventive step would be contrary to Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act itself, is insufficient. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:

CS(COMM) 628/2023 56 of 71 the patent application under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act would be contrary to the provision itself. The remaining prior arts which are cited by ld. Counselhaving not been considered in the impugned order, the Court does not wish to render any opinion in this regard.”

110. In the said decision, the Court also reiterated, in para 32, that fundamental principles governing an analysis on inventive step include: firstly, that the simplicity of the invention does not defeat an invention; secondly, that theinventivestep has to beassessed on the basis of the date of priorityofthe subject patentandnot after thepublicationofthe same i.e. it is not permissibleto a do a hindsightanalysisor an ex-post facto analysis.

111. It is within the above broad matrix that the Court will analyse whether thereexistsa credible challenge to the suit patent. Challenging the validity of the suit patent under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, the defendantsrelied upon20 priorart documents. Of these, special focus was laid on threepriorart documents: US 4835977 (6/6/1989) [“D2”] priority arts WO/1986/000977 (13/02/1986) [“D6”], US7207183 (13/10/2005) [“D14”].

112. Before the prior arts are analysed, it is relevant to carve out the inventive concept in the suit patent. The inventive concept of the suit patent is thatat least onevariablefrequency driver attachedto a compressor in the refrigeration unit of the PCA, supervised by a controller that is configured for variation of the output frequency of at least one variable frequency driver. The central controller is connected to at least one CS(COMM) 628/2023 57 of 71 controller of at least one variable frequency driver wherein the central controller automatically adjusts the cooling performed by the preconditioned air unit according to factors such as ambient temperature, humidity, cabin temperature, outgoing airflow and temperature from the PCA.

113. Let us now analyse and compare the three prior arts cited by defendants with the suit patent. Prior Art D[2] (US 4835977 (6/6/1989)

114. Defendantscounseldrew attention to D[2] and submitted that it also relates to an aircraft air-conditioning system and, more particularly to apparatus andmethodofcoolingthe passenger cabin ofa parkedaircraft. A perusal of the original and complete specification of D[2] reflects that its scopeand objective is completely different to that of the suit patent. The abstract for D[2] clearly states that the invention relates to a method and apparatus for air-conditioningparkedaircraft, in which air at a temperature below the freezing pointofwater is provided under pressureto the aircraft. D[2] departsfrom conventionalmechanizationofair conditioningsystems by supplyingair cooled below the freezing pointofwater. Thepriorartmerely discloses a PCA unit, of which there is no denial by the plaintiff that they were well known,and theplaintiff does not claim inventiveness in a PCA unit per se, but in the VFD controller and the central controller configuration,which this priorart does not possess or claim. Moreover, the priorart focuseson maintaininga constantlow temperature and managing CS(COMM) 628/2023 58 of 71 humidity through periodic defrost cycles and using heat exchangers. In contrast, in the suit patent, the central controller automatically adjusts cooling based on multiple parameters, with specific focus on variable frequency drivers for efficient energy management. Therefore, it is clear that thesuit patent and D[2] deal with different inventive concepts and D[2] cannot be used to mount a challenge to the suit patent. Prior Art D[6] WO/1986/000977 (13/02/1986)

115. Insofar as priorartD[6], WO/1986/000977(13/02/1986), is concerned, it merely teaches about a “Modular Refrigeration System” and not a PCA unit. Moreover, it is not the plaintiffs’ case that modular refrigeration systems were unknown in the state of the art.

116. As per D[6], the modular units work in master-slave setup such that one modularunit acts as a master unit, controlling operations of all other units. D[6] does not disclose a VFD, and a central controller that automatically adjuststhecoolingperformed by a PCA unit. Thedefendants havefailed to disclosethe relationship between a mater-slaveset up and the control operation of the suit patent.

117. Accordingto theavermentsmadein the written statement, prior art D[6], involves a modularconstructionaimed at increasingthecapacity of the refrigeration system resulting from changes in load criteria of the airconditioninginstallation. In D[6], in theevent of a malfunction in one of the modules, that module may be shut down by the control circuits while permitting continued operation of the other modules. Counsel for CS(COMM) 628/2023 59 of 71 defendantsplaced specificrelianceon thefollowing paragraphs relating to prior art D[6]: “Depending on the fault, the defective module may be repaired in situ while the system is in operation, or the defective module may be remove [sic] from the assembly for repair, a spare module being incorporated in the assembly to replace the removed, defective module or the assembly being permitted to operate without a replacement”.

118. A bareperusaloftheaboveparagraphreflects thattheprimary focus of prior art D[6] is modularity. However, in the previous section on claim constructionthis aspecthas been analysed, and the Court is prima facie of the opinion that the suit patent is neutral to the aspect of modularity. Furthermore, D[6] prima facie is not a PCA unit and it does not have the inventiveconceptinvolved in the suit patent, in that it does not have any variablefrequencydriver that has a controller configured for variation of the output frequency of at least one variable frequency driver. This difference between D[6] and thesuit patentwouldnot bean obvious step for a person skilled in the art.

119. Moreover,D[6] was published on 13th February, 1986,after a time gap of 23 years from thesuit patent, and indicates thatthepatentgranted cannot be defeated on groundofobviousness. In this regard, paragraph 36 of the decision in Avery Dennison (supra) is relevant and is produced as under: “36. One of the sure tests in analysing the existence of inventive step would also be the time gap between the prior CS(COMM) 628/2023 60 of 71 art document and the invention under consideration. If a long time has passed since the prior art was published and a simple changeresulted in unpredictableadvantageswhich no one had thought of for a long time, the Court would tilt in favour of holding that the invention is not obvious”. Prior Art D14 (US 7207183)

120. Defendants have relied upon D14 as being the closest prior art. Notably, D14 prima facie appears to be a chiller system and not a PCA unit. In this regard, plaintiffs’ submission that mere use of known refrigerationcomponentswould not make the chiller system a prior art to PCA units finds favourwith theCourt. Indeed, as submitted by plaintiffs, if defendants’ approach is adopted, all innovations in the field of airconditioning would be non-eligible for patents.

121. Furthermore, D14 does notdisclosea centralcontroller but a control panelthatis able to controltheoperationof[1] refrigeration circuit, having 1 VFD controlling compressors in parallel. The inventive step of the suit patent,on the other hand, hinges in the ability of the central controller to control multiple refrigeration systems (each having 1 VFD controlling 1 controller) at the same time in a PCA unit.

122. Pertinently, as has been submitted by plaintiffs, D14 teaches about how a VSD may be used to achieve thesamedesired voltageand frequency of the correspondingmotorsbasedon a common instructionfrom the VSD. The objective of the suit patent, however, is for the central controller to CS(COMM) 628/2023 61 of 71 ensure that all compressors are able to operate at different operating frequency, to ensure that each refrigeration circuit/system is operating at desired conditions. D14 clearly states thatthedrawback ofusing[1] VSD for each compressorwouldmakethechiller system more expensive. Therefore, priorart D14 andthesuit patent haveprima facie differences which do not constitutean obvious step for a personskilled in theart. No challenge to the suit patent can be countenanced in light of prior art D14. Finding on Lack of Inventive Step

123. A perusal of the prior arts brought into focus by the defendants, namely D[2], D[6] and D14 reflects that there is a clear improvement and categoricaldifference between the said prior arts and the invention in the suit patent. Also, theseprior artsare used to combine different elements in order to somehow demonstratelack ofinventiveness. This is what is termed as mosaicing of unrelateddocumentswhich is not permissible in inventive step analysis, unless the documents are inter-linked or cross-referenced.

124. It is settled law that while mosaicing of prior arts may be permitted, thepartyclaimingobviousnessmustbeable to demonstratethat notonly do theprior artsexist, but alsohow a person ofordinary skill in the art would havebeen led to combinetherelevant componentsfrom themosaicofprior arts. In this context, the decision in Prism Cement (supra), as relied upon by the plaintiff, is instructive. Justice Manmohan Singh (Retd.) made the following observation in para 32 of the said decision: “32. The greater the numberof documents which must be CS(COMM) 628/2023 62 of 71 so combined to reach the invention, the more likely on the whole that there is an inventive step, but regard must be paid to the nature of features which are combined.”

125. In the present case, thedefendantshavefailed to establish how, even uponmosaicing ofthedifferent prior arts cited, a person skilled in the art may be able to takeobviousstepsleadingtowards the inventive concept in thesuit patent.Defendants have failed to substantiate their claim that the inventiveconceptin the suit patentwouldbeobviousto a person skilled in theart. Therefore, at theinterim stage, no case for invalidity on the ground of lack of inventive step has been made out by the defendants. b. Double Patenting

126. Defendants counsel submitted that the suit patent should also be revoked under Section 64(1)(j) of the Patents Act, which deals with revocation of patents obtained on a false suggestion or representation. Essentially, it was argued that the plaintiffs engaged in misrepresentation by failing to disclose the suit patent to the Controller examining IN ‘952, considering both patents are substantially similar to each other.

127. This submission is belied by the fact that the First Examination Report for both, the suit patent and IN ‘952, was issued by the same Controller,Mr. Amit Singh, on the same date, that is 16th October, 2017. Therefore, it cannot bepresumedthattheIndian PatentOffice was unaware of the two inventions, or that the plaintiffs secured the suit patent by making a false suggestion or representation. CS(COMM) 628/2023 63 of 71

128. Havingthus analysed defendants’ key submissions to establish that thesuit patentis invalid (on the ground oflack of inventive step and double patenting), this Courtis of the opinion that defendants have been unable to mount a crediblechallenge to thevalidity ofthesuit patent.The suit patent does not, at this stage, appearvulnerableto being invalidated on the above grounds.

(iii) Infringement of the Suit Patent

129. The next issuewhich needs to be examined ofclam mappingin order to assess the plaintiffs claim for infringement.

130. This Courtculled out theprinciples governing patentinfringement in India in SNPC Machines(P) Ltd. v. Vishal Choudhary, 2024SCC OnLine Del 1681. Relevant paragraphs of the same are extracted below:

35. …. The following principles can be culled out collectively from the aforenoted decisions, since all of them rely upon the same previous sources while articulating them from different perspectives: A) Infringement is to be adjudged objectively and defendant's intention may not be material to determine this question; the emphasis however has to be on mapping of ‘essential elements’. B) Whether elements which are missing in the defendant's products are so essential or substantial that the absence would entitle the plaintiff to an injunction. C) Patent infringement analysis, comparison of elements of the suit patent's claims is to be done with the elements/claims of the infringing products. D) There can be a case of non-literal CS(COMM) 628/2023 64 of 71 infringement where each and every component of patent specification is not found in the infringing products i.e. all elements of a claim may not entirely correspond with the infringing product, but it still can be a case of infringement. E) It is the pith and marrow of the invention claimed that is required to be looked into. This test had been referred to in Clark v. Adie, [L.R.] 2 App. Cas. 315 [House of Lords]. F) Non-essential or trifling variations or additions in the productwould not be germane, so long as substance of the invention is found to be copied. G) Pure literal construction is not to be adopted, rather doctrine of purposive construction should be applied. H) Doctrine of equivalents is to be examined and applied if the substituted element in the infringing product does the same work, in substantially the same way, to accomplish substantially the same result. The source of this doctrine traces its origin to an old decision in Winans v. Denmead, 15 How. 330, 14 L.Ed. 717 which was cited with approvalin Graver Tankand Manufacturing Co. v. LindeAir ProductsCo., 339 US 605 (1950) (Supreme Court of United States). I) The essential feature in an infringing article or process are of no account. If the infringing goods are made with the same object in view, which is attained by the patented product, then a minor variation does not mean that there is no piracy. Sometrifling or unessential variation has to be ignored. This principle was cited by the Division Bench of this Court in Raj Prakash v. Mangat Ram, ILR (1977) 2 Del 412. J) While product v. product comparison shall not to be determinative of infringement as opposed to the granted claim v. product comparison, an essential comparison between the products of the plaintiffs and the defendants may be necessary. K) The triple identity test is important - focusing on CS(COMM) 628/2023 65 of 71 function, way the elements serve the function and the result obtained is suitable for analyzing mechanical device (cited in Warner-Jenkinson Co. Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 US 17 (1997) (Supreme Court of United States).

131. It is within this legal matrix that theCourtwill now analysetheclaim mapping submitted by plaintiffs. a. Claim Mapping

132. It is noted that plaintiff has relied on certain documents as noted aboveto assert their claim mapping, since defendants have not provided any specification of the product, and the Court has rejected plaintiffs’ applicationfor appointmentof Local Commissioner to inspect defendants PCA unit by judgment dated 1st November, 2023. By judgment dated 01st November, 2023, this Court had noted the submissions of defendant’s counsel that they stood by specifications and features of the defendants PCA unit as contained in the following documents: i. Two of the documentsi.e. the brochureofthedefendantsPCA units when defendant nos. 1 to 3 used to trade under the brand Cavotec, and the brochure and data sheet of defendant no.4 who manufactured the Cavotec products have been filed on 04th September, 2023. ii. Three other documents, i.e. the Operation, Maintenance and Troubleshooting Manual for PCA unit model PDX 45 IS and for PDX 60 IS of thedefendant as well as thetender documents (RFP), CS(COMM) 628/2023 66 of 71 released by the airportof Goa, delineating the specifications of the PCA unit required, wheredefendantsbid was successful, were filed as confidential documents on 05th September 2023. These documents were filed as confidential documents vide I.A NO. 17220/2023by plaintiffon thebasis thatthesedocuments had been supplied by the defendants as part of their communication who assert thatthey mustbekept confidentialas they contain third party information.

133. Plaintiffs’ counsel in the submissions through the presentation adverted to the Operation Manual for PDX 60IS Model, filed as confidentialdocumentsto showthatthevarious features of the suit patent map clearly to the defendants’ product.

134. Since the documents are being placed confidentially before the Court,relevantextracts from the said document, Operation Manuals, are not being adverted to. TheCourthas examined the same and tabulates the variousfeatures ofthe suit patent claim that map with relevant aspects of the defendant’s equipment as described in the Operation Manual. Plaintiffs claim Features of the defendants’ product Feature 1.[1] A preconditioned air unit (10) for supplyingpreconditioned air to an aircraft parked on the ground, the preconditioned air unit comprising: Extracts from the Manual categorically providethattheequipmentis a PCA unit supplying preconditioned air to the aircraft mounted on a passenger boarding bridge. Feature 1.[2] The diagram from the diagrammatic CS(COMM) 628/2023 67 of 71 A housing (12) accommodating a flow duct (20) with an air inlet for ambient air and an air outlet for connection to the parked aircraft. representation from the Operating Manual shows that the defendants’ equipment is also in housing with air inlet and outlet to the parked area. Feature 1.[3] A blower (30) connected with theflow duct (20) for generation of an air flow from the air inlet (22) toward the air outlet (25). The diagram ofthe defendants’ products shows the existence of a blower connected with theduct going from inlet to the outlet. Feature 1.[4] A plurality of refrigeration systems (36), wherein each refrigeration system comprises: at least one expansion valve (42); at least one evaporator(44) connected in a flow circuit containing a refrigerant, and wherein the at least one evaporator (44) interacts with the air flow in the flow duct (20); and at least one variable frequency driver (46, 54, 56) for power supply of the at least one compressor (38); and The diagram reference figure 1-3 of the OperatingManual does showa plurality of refrigeration systems where each refrigerationsystem comprises, at least one compressor, condenser, one expansion valve, evaporator in a circuit containing refrigerant where the evaporatorinteracts with air flow in the duct. Most importantly, it also shows that the compressor is connected to a variable frequency driver Feature 1.[5] The housing (12) further accommodates a central controller (60)thatis configured for controlling operation of the preconditioned air unit (10) The extractsfrom the OperatingManual describing the equipment, the cooling mode, unit control system, and the controller in Sections 1.1.4, 1.2.1, 1.2.[4] and 1.2.4.[1] show the presence of the controller incorporating various valves CS(COMM) 628/2023 68 of 71 includingthe variable frequency drivers (46, 54, 56) of the pluralityofrefrigerationsystems (36), characterized in that pressuresand temperaturesensors which coordinates the refrigeration circuit. Feature 1.[6] The at least one variable frequency driver (46, 54, 56)has a controller thatis configured for variationofthe outputfrequency of the at least one variable frequency driver (46, 54, 56) Section 1.2.4.[2] of Operating Manual which provides for a VFD statesthatthe compressor VFD controls and protects the compressor and controls the compressor capacity based on the load requirement for maintaining the output air temperature. Feature 1.[7] And thecentralcontroller (60) is connected to at least one controller of the at least one variable frequency driver (46, 54, 56). Section 1.2.[1] of the Operating Manual describes the cooling mode of the defendants’equipment categorically and states that each refrigeration circuit operates independently except for the coordinating effect of the control. Automaticcontrols determinehow many circuits shouldoperateand at what level dependingupon input from the ambient and outlet air temperature sensors. Feature 1.[8] Wherein the central controller (60) automatically adjusts the cooling performed by the preconditioned air unit (10)to at least one of: the selected type of aircraft, the ambient temperature, the humidity, the cabin temperature, the outgoing temperature and the outgoing airflow from the preconditioned air unit (10) The aboveelement is already referenced above in relation to VFD in Section 1.2.4.[2] and cooling mode in Section 1.2.[1] and Section 1.2.4. CS(COMM) 628/2023 69 of 71

135. Thesevarious features were also mapped with the RFP of the Goa airport. It is but obvious that defendants’ product would have complied with the RFP since they won the tender. The relevant specification of the RFP to which the defendants’ product would have mandatorily complied would be as under:a PCA system, contained in a housing, with a blower, multiple refrigeration units, with evaporators, compressors, condensers, expansion valves, compressors having individual VFDs, a central controller,which would superviseand diagnoseinternaland external faults and control all the VFDs.

136. It is evident at least prima facie that the specifications of the defendant'sproduct as evident through theOperationManual for PDX 60IS Model and the Goa tender does map to the suit patent claims. More importantly, since the defendants have chosen not to provide any other information and restricted their non-infringement argument during submissions, to theclaim of non-modularity, thereis no real rebuttal on the issueof mapping. TheCourtis thereforepersuaded, at least prima facie, to accept the claim mapping submitted by the plaintiffs.

137. The plaintiffs’argument that defendants’ non-infringement defense was contraryto Rule3B (vi) of Delhi High Court Rules Governing Patent Suits 2022, as it obligated the defendant to describe the productive technology used by thedefendant to justify its defenseof non-infringement, is possibly merited in these circumstances. As nothing else has been providedby defendants to side step or rebut the specific mapping claims; CS(COMM) 628/2023 70 of 71 this Court is inclined to accept them prima facie at this stage, however, subject to the final adjudication post the trial.

I. RELIEF

138. In view of the above, theCourtis of the opinion that plaintiffs have madeout a prima facie case for interim injunction, and the grounds stated for irreparable harm and balance of convenience are also in favour of plaintiffs. Consideringthatthedefendantshavealreadywon certain tenders with airports in India, the same will not be displaced, since it may effect third partyrights andmay also causeloss to theStateExchequer.However, the interim injunction as under will operate for the future: a) The defendants, and allthose acting for and, on their behalf, shall be restrained from manufacturing, selling, promoting, distributing, dealing in any manner with the PCA unit bearing model number PDX 60IS or any other product i.e. a Pre-conditioned Air Unit (PCA) [for the purposes of aircraft air-conditioning while on the ground], which infringes plaintiffs registered patent no. IN 330145. b) The defendants shall file an affidavit disclosing their turnover from the existing deploymentof the modelnumber PDX 60IS or any other product i.e. a Pre-conditioned Air Unit (PCA) [for the purposes of aircraft air-conditioning while on the ground], which infringes plaintiffs registered patent no. IN 330145, within a period of 4 weeks in a sealed cover. CS(COMM) 628/2023 71 of 71

139. I.A. 17216/2023 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC is accordingly allowed, and disposed of in the above terms. CS(COMM) 628/2023 CC(COMM) 1/2024, I.A. 17218/2023, I.A. 17219/2023, I.A. 18297/2023,I.A. 5765/2024,I.A. 9850/2024, I.A. 9851/2024, I.A. 9852/2024 &I.A. 10717/2024.

1. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 21st August, 2024.

2. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

JUDGE JULY 04, 2024