Delhi High Court
Mold-Tek Packaging Limited vs Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd on 30 April, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 30.04.2026
+ CS(COMM) 944/2024, CC(COMM) 31/2024, CRL.M.A.
32922/2024, I.A. 43924/2024, I.A. 43928/2024 & I.A. 43929/2024
MOLD-TEK PACKAGING LIMITED .....Plaintiff
versus
PRONTON PLAST PACK PVT. LTD. .....Defendant
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Mr. Vinod Chauhan,
Ms. Radhika Pareva, Mr. Yagya Passi, Mr.
Ayush Sharma, Mr. Munesh Kumar Sharma
& Mr. Adithya B., Advocates.
For the Defendant : Mr. J. Sai Deepak and Ms. Malvika Trivedi,
Senior Advocates along with Mr. Vikas
Khera, Mr. Vierat K. Anand, Mr. Lalit
Ambastha, Ms. Sneha Sethia, Ms. Sonakshi
Ahluwalia, Mr. Yash Sharma, Mr. Vikalp
Singh, Mr. Harish Nadda, Mr. Jatin Gautam,
Ms. Shaivika Agrawal, Mr. Rohit & Mr.
Sailendra, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
I.A. 43917/2024 & I.A. 43923/2024
1. The present Suit is filed seeking relief of permanent injunction
restraining the Defendant from infringement of the Patent, damages and / or
in the alternative rendition of accounts, delivery up etc. under the Patents Act,
1970 (“Act”). I.A. 43917/2024 has been filed by the Plaintiff under Order
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 1 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(“CPC“) and I.A. 43923/2024 is filed on behalf of the Defendant under Order
XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The Plaintiff is a public listed company duly incorporated on
28.02.1997, under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The Plaintiff is
engaged in the business of manufacturing injection molded containers for
lubes, paints, food, and other products.
3. The Plaintiff has developed In-Mould Labelling (“IML”) decorated
packaging units including containers and lids thereof for the first time in India.
The Plaintiff is the only company in India, with respect to products in
question, to have completely integrated facilities ranging from mould
designing, mould manufacturing plastic packaging products and in-mould
label manufacturing as per requirements, mould adaptations to in-house
robotic manufacturing.
4. The Plaintiff is a registered proprietor / patentee of Indian Patent No.
401417 (IN’417) under Patent Application No. Patent Application No.
4705/CHE/2014 titled ‘Tamper-Evident Leak Proof Pail Closure Systems’
(“Suit Patent I”) with independent claim nos. 1 and 6 and dependent claims
nos. 2 to 5 are dependent on claim no. l and claim nos. 7 to 9 are dependent
on claim no. 6. Suit Patent I is legal, valid and subsisting, which was granted
by the Patent Office on 15.07.2022. The bibliographic details of the Suit
Patent I are hereunder:
Patent No. 401417
Title Tamper-Evident Leak Proof Pail Closure Systems
Granted Claims 9 claims (Claim 1 and Claim 6 are independent claims)
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 2 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
Patentee MOLD-TEK Packaging Limited
Application Number 4705/CHE/2014
Filing date 25/09/2014
Date of Patent 25/09/2014
Publication u/s 11A 01/07/2016
Date of Grant 15/07/2022
Publication u/s 43(2) 15/07/2022
Date of expiry 25/09/2034
Foreign Counterpart Jurisdiction Application No. Status
PCT PCT/IN2015/000369 Published
UAE P6000317/2017 Patent
Pending
Bahrain 20170051 Patent
Pending
Oman OM/P/2017/00075 Patent
Pending
Saudi Arabia 517381152 Patent
Granted
SA9112
Qatar QA/201703/00132 Patent
Pending
Iran 139550140003015944 Abandoned
5. The Suit Patent I relates to an improved pail or container, especially a
tamper-evident leak proof pail or container. The said tamper-evident pail or
container comprises of compatible closures and particularly an arrangement
wherein the closure is provided with a tear band which is manually operable
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 3 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
to facilitate opening the pail or container for access to the content therein. The
Suit Patent I provides a novel and inventive tamper-evident closure-container
combination having special advanced features. The advanced features include
tamper evidence and a tear away band which can be pulled out in
anticlockwise direction around the periphery of the container. The closure
includes primary and secondary locking facilities which allow the container
to be used safely and effectively. The container is shaped and configured such
that the closure fits into the sections defined so that a primary zone or zones
of weight transfer between the closure and the container occurs at the surface
of the side wall of the container.
6. The present invention is a closure having multi-functionality comprises
features which are highly desirable, in combination with a container
comprising a tear band that further provides security from tampering and
indicating when tampered. Such a closure and container combination is
particularly useful for the shipment, storage and marketing of products such
as pet food, paints etc. which are not fully consumed in a single serving or
distribution but may be dispensed over a period – days or weeks. The container
and closure combination of present invention provides a closure which is
readily manually altered by removal of a tear band for opening but provides
for easy and secure closing and reopening after removal of the tear band.
7. The Plaintiff is a registered proprietor / patentee of Indian Patent No.
298724 under Patent Application No. 20/KOL/2009 titled ‘A Tamper Proof
Lid Having Spout for Containers And Process for its Manufacture’ (“Suit
Patent II”) with independent claim nos. 1 (product claim) and 9 (process
claim) and dependent claims nos. 2 to 8 are dependent on claim no. l and claim
nos. 10 to 13 are dependent on claim no. 9. The Plaintiff has not made any
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 4 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
application for the same / substantially the same invention outside India. Suit
Patent II was granted by the Patent Office on 11.07.2018. The bibliographic
details of Suit Patent II are hereunder:
Patent No. 298724
Title A Tamper Proof Lild Having Spout for Containers and
Process for its Manufacture
Granted Claims 13 claims
Patentee Mold-Tek Packaging Limited (Plaintiff)
Application Number 20/KOL/2009
Filing date 01/01/2009
Date of Patent 01/01/2009
Publication u/s 11A 20/02/2009
Date of Grant 11/07/2018
Publication u/s 43(2) 13/07/2018
Date of expiry 01/01/2029
Foreign Counterpart No corresponding foreign application has been made for
the suit patent
8. Suit Patent II relates to a novel and inventive product viz. a tamper
proof lid having a leak proof spout for containers and a process thereof. The
product and process of preparation of tamper and leak proof lid as disclosed
and claimed in the Suit Patent II is a very efficient industrial process and
results in a product (i.e., tamper-proof lid with spout for container) providing
100% leak proof assembly of the spout, in an interlocked arrangement with
the main cap / lid and a tamper proof lid for the container.
9. Suit Patent II provides for a leak-proof pull up spout assembly, having
special ‘M’ shaped contour at circular periphery providing perfect leak-proof
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 5 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
joint while assembled with main lid and adapted to support pull-up operation.
An inverted ‘U’ shaped contour in spout closure facilitates leak-proof fit with
base by a threaded interconnection, creating a leak proof barrier through the
spout base orifice. The tamper proof lid with spout for containers wherein a
‘shrink fit area’ and a ‘tail ring area’ are selectively provided on the main lid
opening to house the spout assembly in 100% leak proof yet detachable
manner, involving spinning operation, ensures desired dispensing at user end.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
10. The Plaintiff filed a suit being CS(COMM) 668/2023 titled as ‘Mold
Tek Packaging Limited v. Pronton Plast Pack Private Limited’ before the
learned District Judge, Commercial Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
(“Trial Court”) for grant of ad-interim interlocutory injunction.
11. Vide order dated 20.12.2023, the learned Trial Court granted ad interim
interlocutory injunction in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the Suit Patents
restraining the Defendant from infringing the Suit Patents. The Defendant
moved an application for vacating the order dated 20.12.2023 before the
learned Trial Court. Vide order dated 02.05.2024, the learned Trial Court
vacated the ad interim injunction granted order dated 20.12.2023.
12. Thereafter, the Defendant filed the Counter Claim before the learned
Trial Court being CC(COMM) 19/2024 challenging the validity of the Suit
Patents for seeking revocation / cancellation / rejection / rectification of the
Suit Patents. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court transferred the Suit and
Counter Claim to this Court in term of Section 104 of the Act, which are
renumber as CS (COMM) 944/ 2024 and CC(COMM) 31/2024.
13. The order dated 02.05.2024 passed by learned Trial Court was
challenged by the Plaintiff before the Division Bench of this Court and vide
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 6 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
order dated 11.07.2025. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the Appeal
filed by the Plaintiff by setting aside the order dated 02.05.2024 vacating the
ad-interim injunction was set aside and the order dated 20.12.2023 was
directed to remain operational and matter was remanded to this Court for fresh
adjudication on the aspect of interim injunction.
14. Vide order dated 08.10.2025, the Judgment was reserved in these
Applications. During the course of hearing, the Parties relied upon the Order
dated 20.08.2025 passed in a suit filed by the Plaintiff against a third-party
namely, Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. (“Neway”) being CS(COMM) 1/2024
before the District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Patiala House Court, Delhi
involving the Suit Patents, whereby the interim injunction qua Suit Patent I
was granted in favour of the Plaintiff against Neway, whereas it was rejected
in respect of Suit Patent II.
15. Both the Plaintiff and Neway had preferred their respective appeals
before the Division Bench of this Court being ‘Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.
Mold-Tek Packaging Limited’ FAO(COMM) No.235/2025 and ‘Mold-Tek
Packaging Limited v. Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd.’ FAO(COMM)
No.241/2025. Vide judgment dated 28.01.2026 the Division Bench decided
the said Appeals, 2026:DHC:702-DB (“Neway Judgment”), wherein the
aspect of invalidity of Suit Patent II has been remanded back to the learned
Trail Court. Accordingly, at the request of the Parties the matter was listed for
clarification on 07.02.2026 and with the consent of the Parties, the order dated
08.10.2025 reserving the judgement in these Applications was recalled. On
07.02.2026, the Parties made submissions on the limited aspect of the Neway
Judgment and, accordingly, the Judgment in the present Applications was
reserved.
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 7 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
16. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that:
16.1. The Plaintiff is a progressive ISO 9001-2015 certified company
based in Hyderabad, India, involved in the manufacture of
high-quality plastic packaging products. The Plaintiff became
a publicly listed (BSE: 533080) enterprise in the year 1993 and
NSE in the year 2015.
16.2. The Plaintiff has decoration facilities including IML-Robotic
Decoration, In-house Integrated IML manufacture with 9 color
gravure printing machine and label cutting machines including
Schober, automatic screen printing, offset printing, shrink
sleeving, heat transfer labeling decoration etc. The Plaintiff
uses hot runners and beryllium-copper inserts to make world
class molds at a fraction of costs. The Plaintiff has more than
70 injection molding machinery up to 650 ton including
Cincinnati, Engel, Demag, Krauss-Maffei, and Niigata. The
Plaintiff’s products are used by Blue Chip and Multi-National
Companies. They have high precision, low dimensional
variations, and great stability on the automated filling lines.
16.3. The Plaintiff has various prominent clients, namely, Unilever,
Dabur, Vadilal, Pepsi, Hatsun, Quality Walls, Haldiram, Parle,
Diary Day, Heinz, Café Coffee Day, Heritage, Duke, Adani
Wilmar, Prestige, Paras etc.
16.4. The object of the present invention to provide a new and
improved container closure that can be readily applied by handSignature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 8 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
and can be removed with equal ease with the use of hand. The
other objects of the present invention are hereunder:
a. To provide a closure with a tamper-evident feature and a
tear band.
b. To provide a closure with a special locking feature for a
container, particularly a pail.
c. To provide a closure, where after the removal of the tear
band, a piece of the closure remains intact with the container
indicating the tampering of the container.
d. To provide a container with reinforcing ribs or web which
improves the strength-to-material and / or strength-to-
weight ratios and also enhances the polymer flow during
moulding with lower energy.
16.5. The products of the Plaintiff which are manufactured using the
Suit Patents I and II technologies have achieved tremendous
success in the market. The sales figures for the Financial Year
(“FY”) 2018-2019 of the products sold under the Suit Patent I
were ₹24.66 crores and for Suit Patent I, ₹142.08 crores.
16.6. The Defendant, Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd., is engaged into
business of manufacturing and selling of products like plastic
container, pails, drums, lids etc., including the range of
products which infringes the Suit Patents I and II of the Plaintiff
(“Impugned Goods”).
16.7. In the first week of November 2023, the Plaintiff came to know
through website, namely IndiaMart, that the Defendant is
selling and offering for sale various products, infringingSignature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 9 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
Plaintiff’s Suit Patents I and II. It was further revealed that the
products (viz. plastic containers) of the Defendant are identical
to the products of the Plaintiff in all respect and are substandard
in quality.
16.8. A comparative analysis of claims of Plaintiff’s Suit Patent I and
features of Impugned Goods of the Defendant are reproduced
hereunder:
GRANTED CLAIMS PICTURES OF THE INFRINGING
PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT FEATURES IN
PRODUCTS THE
DEFENDANT’S
PRODUCT
Claims: l. The first two
1. A tamper-evident lid pictures (Fig. 1
comprising of: a and 2) of the
tamper-evident means product on the
having left hand side
i) one or more tear clearly showing
bands (6) in outer wall the tamper
(4) of the said lid (1) evident lid in the
between the primary defendant
section (7) and the product
secondary section (8) of comprising of:
the lid(l); i) a tear band
ii) a tear path extending labeled as (6)
continuously around the visible on the
said lid (1); and outer side (4) of
the lid between
the primary
section (7) and
secondary section
(8) of the lid.
and
iii) at least one starting ii) the 1st picture
knob (6a) contiguous to (Fig 1) showing
the said tear bands (6); the tear band
characterized in that, peeled off
said tear band (6) following a path
present on the outer wall extending
(4) of the lid (1) is Continuously
peeled along the said around the lid
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 10 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
tear path to permit upper and
primary portion (7) of
the said lid (1) to be ii) iii) Fig. 1, 2,
completely lifted from 3A on the left
the open top while the hand side of the
lower secondary portion lid section of the
(8) of the said lid (1) product shows
remains attached to a the presence of a
container (2) through a starting tear knob
secondary locking (6a) contiguous
section(8) providing a to the said tear
visual indication of lid band (6) present
(1) from the container on the outer wall
(2) is being opened; and (4) of the lid such
said secondary locking that the tear band
section(8) consisting of (6) along the tear
a secondary lock (11) path to open the
with a protrusion. 2. The primary portion
tamper-evident lid as (7) of the lid from
claimed in claim 1, the top and the
wherein the tear lower secondary
locking section
(8) remains
attached to the
container
comprising a
secondary lock
(11)
present on the
secondary
portion (8) of the
lid/closure (1)
containing
protrusions (100)
in Fig. 3B in the
defendant
product.
2. Fig. 4 shows
the tear path
which is defined
path is defined by score by score lines or
lines or discrete discrete frangible
frangible bridges or ribs bridges or ribs
extending across a gap extending across
between the tear band a gap between theSignature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 11 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
(6) and the remainder of tear band (6) of
the closure. the lid (1).
3. The tamper-evident
lid as claimed in claim
1, wherein the 3. In Fig. 5 shows
secondary lock (11) the tamper-
comprises lugs that evident lid in the
penetrate into spring- defendant
back hinges (26) of) the product
container (2). comprises of a
secondary lock
(11) comprises of
lugs that
penetrate into
spring-back
hinges (26) of the
container shown
in Fig. 6.
4. In Fig. 7, the
tamper-evident
lid (1) of the
defendant
product shows
the presence of
finger gripping
portion (10).
5. Fig. 8 A and B
of the tamper-
evident lid shows
the presence of:
i) an inverted U-
shaped peripheral
channel defined
by the outer wall
(4) and the inner
wall of the said
lid of the
defendant
4. The tamper-evident product.
lid as claimed in claim 1 a rim section (14)
wherein the lid (1) on the inner side
comprises at least one or (5) of the lid
more finger gripping beside the inner
portions (10). wall (Fig. 8B)
6. Fig. 9 shows
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 12 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
5. The tamper-evident the picture of the
lid as claimed in claim 1 container-closure
includes a leak-proof combination of
means comprising of: the defendant
product
comprising: i) of
a secondary lock
with a protrusion
(100); (Fig. 9)
ii) a primary lock
(9) on a primary
section consisting
i) an inverted Ushaped of a protrusion
peripheral channel (99) over the
defined by the outer primary lock (9)
wall (4) and the inner situated on the
wall (5) of the said lid primary section
(1); (7) of the
lid/closure
a rim section (14) on the (l)(Fig.9).
inner side of the lid (1) b) said container
beside the inner wall in Fig. 10 having:
(5); i. radially
(iii) a primary section outwardly
(7) consisting of a extending lip (30)
primary lock (9) with a on open end of
protrusion (99) towards side wall (13) of
the inverted U- shape the container (2)
peripheral channel that for detachable
cooperates with radially locking of the
outwardly extending lip container (2) with
(30) on open end of side the lid (1) in the
wall (13) of the defendant
container (2) for product [as
detachable locking of shown in Fig. 10]
the container (2) with c) Fig. II and Fig.
the lid (1). 12 shows the lid
(1) picture of the
defendant
product with
outer wall side
(4) marked in Fig.
II and inner wall
marked in Fig. 12
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 13 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
The
specifications
claimed in claim
number 5 point
number (iii) have
already been
marked in Fig. I
to Fig. 12 of the
defendant
product.
6. A tamper-evident 8. The
leak-proof lid and specifications
container combination claimed in claim
for the transfer of load 6 point number
from the said lid to the (a) (i) to (v) have
said container already been
comprising of; marked in Fig. 1
a) a tamper-evident lid to Fig. 12 of the
(1) having: defendant
i. one or more tear bands product.
(6) in outer wall (4) of 9. Fig. 13 shows
the said lid (1) between the picture of the
the primary section (7) defendant
and the secondary product showing
section (8) of the lid (1), the open top of
b) said container (2) the container (2)
having 1. a side wall with the U –
(13) with an open top shaped channels
forming a Ushaped running all
channel, and ii. a base; throughout
wherein the side walls around the
(13) of the said container.
container (2) are tapered 10. Fig. 14 shows
as they project from the the picture of the
base to the top of
defendant
container (2). product of the
8. The tamper-evident picture of the
leak-proof lid and product showing
container combination the side walls
as claimed in claim 6, (13) of the said
wherein the tamper- container are
evident lid comprises at tapered as they
least one or more project from the
protruded segments base (narrow
(111) at the comers of diameter) to the
the top surface of the top of the said
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 14 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
said lid (1) for container (wide
orientation of the diameter).
containers in a stacked 11. Fig. 15 and
position. Fig. 16 shows the
picture of the top
surface of the lid
(1) part of the
defendant
product
containing the
same protrusions
(111) at the
comers which
provides support
and orientation
9. The tamper-evident for stacking of
leak-proof lid and the containers.
container combination
as claimed in claim 6,
comprises axially 12. Fig. 17 and
oriented stacking ribs Fig. 18 shows the
(555) on the inner side picture of the
of the wail of the said interior part of
container, and are the container (2)
distributed around the of the defendant
comers which can be product having
engaged by at least one the same
stacking rib of a orientation of the
container located stacking ribs
beneath it, during (555) on the inner
stacking of multiple side as that in the
empty containers, Plaintiff product
thereby fixing the and explained in
containers in place in a claim 9 of the
non-rotating fashion subject patent.
relative to each other.
13. There are in
total four
stacking ribs
(555) visible on
the inner side of
the container (2)
in the defendant
product. [Fig. 18]
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 15 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
16.9. A comparative analysis of claims of Plaintiff’s Suit Patent II
and features of Impugned Goods of the Defendant are
reproduced hereunder:
GRANTED PICTURES OF THE DEFENDANT
CLAIMS DEFENDANT'S (PRONTON
PLAINTIFF PRODUCTS PLASTIC PVT.
(MOLD-TEK LTD.)
PACKAGING)
CLAIMS: Fig. 1 shows the top
1. A tamper proof view of the lid (1) of
lid having leak the defendant product
proof and pilfer highlighting the
proof spout for following features of:
containers a. Spout
comprising: b. Spout closure
a main lid body c. Protrusions on
having spout means the top view of the
comprising a spout lid
base held with which matches with
respect to said main the features disclosed
body and a spout in claim 1 of the
closure adapted for mentioned patent.
releasable operation Fig. 2 shows the inner
of said spout view of the lid (1) of
means; said lid the defendant product
body providing for highlighting the
a spout region following features of:
adapted to secure a. Spout base
said spout base and b. a cylindrical
including a downwardly and
cylindrical vertically
downwardly and extending wall
vertically extending defining a shrink fit
wall defining a area for leak proof
shrink fit area for press fit securing of
leak proof press fit the spout base with
securing of the respect to a
spout base with matching exterior
respect to a profile of the spout
matching exterior base,
profile of the spout
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 16 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
base and a tail ring c. Tail ring
area contiguous to which matches with
said vertically the features disclosed
downwardly in claim 1 of the
extending wall mentioned patent.
adapted for further Fig. 3 shows the
leak proof securing image of the inner
of the sprout base section of the lid (1)
with respect to the indicating the
spout region in said inverted U-shaped
main lid body; said contour region fitted
spout closure within the Spout
having a region present on the
downwardly main lid body which
protruding is very evidently
cylindrical portion disclosed in claim 2
with a closed top of the patent.
adapted to press fit Moreover, in Fig. 3,
against the the circular spout
cylindrical region to secure the
vertically upwardly spout base in the main
protruding wall of lid body is shown
the spout base and fitted with the Spout
also adapted for a base in the same way
leak proof fit. as explained in claim
2. A tamper proof 2 of the patent.
lid having leak Fig. 4 shows the
proof and pilfer circular gripper
proof spout for section embedded
containers as within the integrally
claimed in formed spout region
claim 1, wherein the of the lid (1) which is
lid body provides a fitted with the
circular spout vertically extending
region to secure the cylindrical wall
spout base, wherein defining the shrink fit
the spout base area and the way the
comprises a circular gripper is
vertically and attached to the
upwardly extending cylindrical area is
cylindrical portion disclosed in claim 2
and an circular of the patent.
gripper and leak- Fig. 5 shows the
proof member separate picture of the
integrally formed circular gripper
and originating section which is
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 17 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
from said base of embedded and fitted
said vertically and within the cylindrical
upwardly extending section as described
cylindrical portion in claim 2 of the
which is adapted to patent.
provide for the Fig. 6 shows the
desired leak proof separate picture of the
securing of the said inner section of the
spout base with integrally fitted spout
respect to the region from the top
downwardly and view of the lid (1) in
vertically extending the defendant product
cylindrical wall showing the M-
defining a shrink fit shaped circular
area and said tail portion within the
ring area spout region adapted
contiguous to said to juxtapose against
vertically the vertically
downwardly cylindrical wall of the
extending wall and spout region and the
required securing of description exactly
the sprout base with matches with the
respect to the sprout disclosure of claim 3
region in said main of the patent.
lid body; and Further, Fig. 6 shows
wherein the spout the same circular
closure having a gripper in the spout
downwardly region in the
protruding defendant product
cylindrical portion which matches with
with a closed top the claim 3
Includes an inverted disclosures.
U type contour Fig. 7 shows the
adapted to press fit shrink fit area which
against the seems to be in the
cylindrical shape of inverted U-
vertically upwardly shaped when pushed
protruding wall of against the spout base
the sprout base. region.
3. A tamper proof Fig. 8 shows the full
lid having leak view of the inner side
proof and pilfer of the spout region
proof spout for when pushed towards
containers as the upper section
claimed in claim 2 connected with the
wherein said free end of the
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 18 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
circular gripper and Mshaped region in
leakproof the circular gripper of
membrane the leak proof spout
integrally formed assembly.
with respect to the
spout base Fig. 9 shows the
comprises of a presence of vertically
substantially M extending and
shaped circular leak downwardly
proof end member protruding cylindrical
adapted to reach member of the spout
and corresponds to region which is
an internal profile configured in the
of the lid member at same way in the
said spout region defendant product as
whereby said M explained in claim 5
shaped portion and of the patent.
in particular an Fig. 10 shows the U-
external free arm of type contour
said M shaped formation of the spout
member of the closure while
spout base is tightening of the
adapted to spout closure in a way
juxtapose against a supporting the
matching profile of cylindrical
the vertically downwardly
extending protruding shrink fit
cylindrical wall area as disclosed in
defining a shrink fit claim 5 and claim 6 of
area of said spout the said patent
region of the lid for application.
a perfect leak-proof Fig. 11 shows the
assembly and also presence of wings for
impart stability to the tightening and
the lid with spout facilitating the pull up
for its performing operation of the inner
the spout opening spout closure region
and closing in the defendant
operation. product which is
4. A tamper proof exactly disclosed in
lid having leak claim 7 of the patent.
proof and pilfer Fig. 12 shows the
proof spout for presence of the tail
containers as rings on the spout
claimed in claim 3 base in the defendant
wherein the spout product for the
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 19 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
means comprises a purpose of being
pull-up sprout and folded around the
said M shaped end lower edge of the
configuration of the spout base.
spout base and its
juxtaposition with
respect to the
corresponding
matching internal
dimensions of the
sprout region of the
lid provide for a
leak-proof
assembly and also
additional support
for performing the
pull-up operation.
5. A tamper proof
lid having leak
proof and pilfer
proof spout for
containers as
claimed in anyone
of claims 1 to 4
wherein the outer of
said vertically
extending
cylindrical wall of
the spout base and
the inside of the
vertically
downwardly
protruding
cylindrical member
of the spout closure
are provided with
matching threads to
facilitate
operatively
releasable threaded
connection there
between the closure
and the base of the
spout means.
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 20 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
6. A tamper proof
lid having leak
proof and pilfer
proof spout for
containers as
claimed in claim 5
wherein the U type
contour of the spout
closure is adapted
such that while
tightening of the
closure with the
spout base the
contours is adapted
to guide the inner
(mouth) of the pull-
up spout and builds
a pressurized wall
surface around the
inner mouth of the
spout base and also
prevents any
slippage /override
and in turn provide
the desired leak-
proof barrier
through the spout
base.
7. A tamper proof
lid having leak
proof and pilfer
proof spout for
containers as
claimed in anyone
of claims 5 to 6
wherein said pull up
spout closure is
provided with
wings for tightening
and facilitating the
pull-up operation.
8. A tamper proof
lid having leak
proof and pilfer
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 21 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
proof spout for
containers as
claimed in anyone
of claims 1 to 7
wherein the tail
rings are adapted to
be folded whereby
the same bends
around the lower
edge of the hanging
arm of the M
shaped member of
the spout base to
further achieve the
leakproof securing
of the spout base
with respect to the
lid.
16.10. The Defendant infringes all the claims of Suit Patent I and
claim nos. 1 to 8 of Suit Patent II and produces a product which
is identical to the products of the Plaintiff in every respect. The
Impugned Goods are being manufactured by the Defendant
using the process as disclosed in claim nos. 9 to 13 of Suit
Patent II. Hence, the Defendant also infringes claim nos. 9 to
13 of Suit Patent II.
16.11. Comparison of the Impugned Goods is to be done based on
granted claims of the Plaintiff and not from the Plaintiff’s
products. Reliance was placed upon the decisions in Sotefm SA
v. Indraprastha Cancer Society & Research Centre & Ors.,
Neutral Citation: 2022:DHC:595 and Strix Ltd. v. Maharaja
Appliances Ltd., Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:7695 while
making the above submission.
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 22 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
16.12. Mr. Sunil Bajaj, erstwhile CEO of M/s Vaidehi Plastic
Packaging, was a distributor of Plaintiff’s products and is now
CEO of the Defendant’s company. The Plaintiff has filed the
letter confirming that M/s Vaidehi Plastic Packaging as
authorized agent / distributor on behalf of the Plaintiff for
promoting exclusive rigid plastic injection moulding square
pack food grade containers of 15 litre and 5 litre sizes and to
market the Plaintiff’s plastic rigid packing containers of square
pack of 15 litres and 5 litres pails in selected states of India.
The Plaintiff has also filed a Mutual Confidentiality Agreement
between the Plaintiff and M/s Vaidehi Plastic Packaging
executed 13.09.2017 and the letter dated 03.10.2017 issued by
Mr. Sunil Bajaj on behalf of M/s Vaidehi Plastic Packaging to
Plaintiff regarding the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement. It
clearly indicates the mala fide attempt on part of the Defendant
to unlawfully exploit the commercial success of Plaintiff’s
products and technical know-how thereof with a clear intention
to unlawfully exploit Plaintiff’s proprietary technology.
Reliance was placed upon the decisions in FMI Limited v.
Ashok Jain & Ors., 2006 SCC OnLine Del 1423 and Sona
BLW Precision Forgings Limited & Anr. v. Sona Mandhira
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1118 while making the
above submission.
16.13. The Defendant has also copied the Plaintiff’s designs, bearing
Design Nos. 299039 and 299041 and has obtained registrations
for such designs. The Plaintiff has filed petitions for
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 23 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
cancellations of these designs of the Defendant before the
learned Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks
which are currently pending. A pictorial comparison of the
registered designs of the Plaintiff and that of the Defendant is
reproduced hereunder:
IN 299039
Plaintiff / Respondent’s Counter-Claimant /
registered Designs Defendant’s registered
DesingDesign Application No. 299039 Design Application No.
Date of Application: 318984-001
01/11/2017 Date of Application:
22/06/2019
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 24 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
IN 299041
Plaintiff / Respondent’s Counter-Claimant /
registered Designs Defendant’s registered
Desing
Design Application No. 299041 Design Application No.
Date of Application: 318985-001
01/11/2017 Date of Application:
22/06/2019
16.14. The Defendant was well aware about the Suit Patents I and II
as well as commercial success of Plaintiff’s products. Prior to
launching the Impugned Goods in the market, the Defendant
neither filed any pre-grant opposition nor any post-grant
opposition under Section 25 of the Act before the Patent Office
against the grant of the Suit Patents I and II. The Defendant
never filed any proceedings seeking revocation of Suit Patents
I and II under Section 64 of the Act prior to the Suit, or anySignature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 25 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
proceeding under Section 105 of the Act seeking any
declaration of non-infringement. It is settled law that the
defendant’s failure to “clear the way” by either challenging the
patent at pre-grant or post-grant stage by filing opposition or
by seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement before
exploiting the patent, exposes the defendant to interlocutory
injunction. Reliance was placed upon the decisions in Merck
Sharp and Dhome Corporation & Anr v. Glenmark
Pharmaceuticals, 2015 SCC Online Del 8227 and Novartis
AG and Ors. v. Natco Pharma Limited, 2021 SCC OnLine Del
5340 while making the above submission.
16.15. In order to claim non-infringement qua Suit Patent I, the
Defendant has done a comparison of the Impugned Goods with
the products of the Plaintiff’s, which is impermissible in law.
As far as infringement of Suit Patent II is concerned, the
Defendant simply claims it is using generic technology without
identifying such generic technology, which is no defense to
infringement. The expert of the Defendant has also done the
same product to product comparison wherein it has highlighted
the design and ocular imperfections in the Impugned Goods to
claim that such products do not infringe the suit patents. It is
settled law that infringement of a patent is ascertained by
comparing the patent claims with the impugned product and
not by a product-to-product comparison Reliance is placed
upon the decisions in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 26 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
Another v. Cipla Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14738 while
making the above submission.
16.16. Further, to avoid the consequences of infringement, the
Defendant falsely claims that the tear band in the lid of
Impugned Goods opens only on three sides of the container,
unlike on all four sides as has been disclosed in Suit Patent I.
Even if the argument of Defendant that the tear band in the
Impugned Goods opens on three sides and the lid does not
completely lift off is assumed to be true, even then the
Impugned Goods would infringe Suit Patent I under the
Doctrine of Pith and Substance since the essential features of
Suit Patent I are infringed by the Impugned Goods. Any
dissimilarity that the Defendant claims vis-Ã -vis Suit Patents I
and II are merely trifling variations, that still render the
Impugned Goods in substance equivalent to the Plaintiff’s Suit
Patents I and II. It has been held that all-element rule cannot be
adopted in exclusion of pith and marrow rule. Thus, the
Impugned Goods do not become non-infringing due to minor
workshop improvements. Reliance was placed upon the
following decisions while making the above submission:
a. Raj Parkash v. Mangat Ram Chowdhry and Ors., 1977
SCC OnLine Del 33
b. FMC Corporation and Others v. Natco Pharma Limited,
2022 SCC Online Del 4249
c. SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors. v. Mr. Vishal
Choudhary, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 33Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 27 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
16.17. The expert report dated 23.01.2024 filed by the Defendant has
been prepared by an Assistant Professor of Design, IIT,
Guwahati. The said expert has compared ornamental features
of the Impugned Goods vis-Ã -vis Plaintiff’s product which is a
completely incorrect manner of ascertaining infringement of a
patent. Similarly, another expert report dated 19.01.2024 filed
by the Defendant has been prepared by a Senior Engineer –
Design / Quality Assurance / CM wherein there is no
comparison of the granted claims of the Suit Patents I and II
with the Impugned Goods. Both the said reports are silent on
the claims of the Suit Patents I and II.
16.18. It is a settled law that a mere challenge to the patent is not
sufficient to deny the relief of injunction to the patent holder in
a suit for infringement at the interim stage, but a credible
challenge of a higher degree is required to satisfy the Court for
the court to deny such relief. Such a credible challenge is
completely absent in the present case. Reliance was placed
upon the following decisions while making the above
submission:
a. Moldtek Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. Proton Plast Pvt. Ltd.,
2025:5549:DHC-DB
b. F. Hoffman La Roche Ltd. v. Viola Ltd., 2008 SCC Online
Del 382
c. Novartis AG and Ors. (supra)
d. FMC Corporation and Ors v. Best Crop Sciences LLP,
2021 SCC OnLine Del 3647Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 28 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
16.19. In order to challenge validity of Suit Patent I, the Defendant
has cited 18 prior arts. Out of these 18 prior arts, the first 8 prior
arts on which the Defendant places utmost reliance, are
mentioned in the Complete Specification of the Suit Patent I
itself and the Patent Office granted the patent after considering
the said prior arts. Further, the rest of the prior arts are not even
relevant to the subject matter of Suit Patent I. Further, as far as
Suit Patent II is concerned, the Defendant has cited 9 prior arts
and none of which anticipates the teachings of the Suit Patent
II or render it obvious.
16.20. The Plaintiff has registration for designs as well as patents
however, the present Suit is filed for infringement of the
granted patents. The Designs Act, 2000 and the Act covers
distinct areas of Intellectual Property. The Defendant it is not
able to appreciate the trite law that a patent is awarded for
technical advancement (novelty and inventive step in
technology) of a product / process while a design is awarded
only for aesthetic aspects of the products (novelty in visible
aspects of products), and that same can exist in one product.
The Design Nos. 299039, 299040 and 299041 only include
aesthetic features that are visible to the naked eye and not the
tamper proofing features that are protected by Suit Patent I.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
17. The learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant submitted that:
17.1. The Plaintiff has concealed the relevant fact that the Plaintiff
filed another Patent Application No. 842/KOL/2009 (PatentSignature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 29 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
No. 288127) on 09.06.2009 titled ‘A Container With Lid
Locking Involving Pilfer Proof Arrangement’ (“Prior Patent”)
wherein tear knob, tear band, spring back hinges, primary and
secondary section are also mentioned and despite that the Prior
Patent is not mentioned in the Suit Patent I. The Prior Patent
relates to substantially the same invention.
17.2. The Plaintiff has also concealed the relevant fact that the
Plaintiff filed another Patent Application No. 202041020733
on 16.05.2020 titled ‘Locking System For A Pail Or Container
And Lid’ (“Pending Patent”) wherein the Plaintiff distinguish
Suit Patent I and the aforesaid patent. The same is pending
before the learned Controller.
17.3. The Plaintiff has not filed the copy of abandoned order passed
in Application No. 139550140003015944 in Iran and also
applications filed in UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar
etc. The Plaintiff has mentioned that Suit Patent I relates to an
improved pail or container, however, improvement over prior
arts is not mentioned. According to the Plaintiff there are total
9 claims out of which claim nos. 1 and 6 are independent
claims. There is no claim construction done by the Plaintiff.
The learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant relied upon the
decisions in M/s Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v.
Hindustan Metal Industries, (1979) 2 SCC 511 and Guala
Closure SPA v. AGI Greenpac Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Del
3510 while making the above submission.
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 30 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
17.4. The Plaintiff has suppressed the relevant fact that the Plaintiff
filed Application No. 2175/MAS/1998 for Patent No. 207276
on 28.09.1998 titled ‘A Pull Up Spout With Tamper Proof Seal’
(“Ceased Patent”) and the same was ceased on 29.09.2008.
The non-disclosure of earlier patent violates the provision of
inter alia Section 3(d) of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel
for the Defendant relied upon the following decisions while
making the above submission:
a. F. Hoffmann-LA Roche Ltd. and Anr. v. Cipla Ltd., 2009
(110) DRJ 452 (DB)
b. Freebit AS v. Exotic Mile Private Limited, 2023 SCC
OnLine Del 8213
c. Freebit AS v. Exotic Mile Private Limited, 2021 SCC
OnLine Del 5361
17.5. The expert of the Plaintiff has compared the Impugned Goods
with the product of the Plaintiff which is not allowed. The
Plaintiff has given a ungranted patent product to the expert and
the expert of the Plaintiff has compared the Impugned Goods
with the different product of the Plaintiff which is not subject
matter of the Suit Patent II. No claim mapping is done by the
expert of the Plaintiff which is cardinal requirement for a suit
of infringement of patent. There is no claim construction.
17.6. The Plaintiff differentiate prior art: US7475788 (“D1”) with
the Suit Patent I on the ground that “D1 fails to disclose the
complete detachment of the upper portion of the container after
removing the tear band as the closure of D1 remains attached
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 31 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
to the container even after the removal of the tear band and
opening of the top by pivotal motion about said hinge”,
however, filed an infringement suit knowing well that in the
Impugned Goods also, the tear band opens only on three sides
of the container, the lid does not detach from the container or
the lower secondary portion of the locking section, the lid
cannot be completely lifted from the container. Hence, it acts
like a bin mechanism. Even, the Impugned Goods, filed by the
Plaintiff, prove the same that the lid is not removed completely.
17.7. The independent claim no. 1 of Suit Patent I is reproduced
hereunder to show the difference between the Impugned
Goods:
A tamper-evident lid The Defendant is also making
comprising of tamper-evident lid as the same
is a part of prior art
A tamper-evident means The Defendant’s product
having: does have this feature as
a. One or more tear although the Defendant’s
bands in outer wall of product also has tear band.
the said lid However, the tear band only
b. A tear path extending extends to three sides of the lid
continuously around as opposed to the patent which
the said lid; and claims that the tear band is
c. At least one starting present around the lid which
knob contiguous to the that it is present on all the four
said tear bands sides. Further, what the patent
claims is that the tear path also
extends continuously to all the
four sides whereas the tear
path in the Defendant’s
product extends only to three
sides of the lid;
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 32 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
Characterised in that said tear The Defendant’s product does
band present on the outer wall of not have this feature as since
the lid is peeled along with the the tear path extends only to
said tear path to permit upper three sides as opposed to being
primary portion of the said lid to around as mentioned in the
be completely lifted from the claim; The lid can only be
open top while the lower lifted from the three sides
secondary portion of the said lid where the tear path is present.
remains attached to a container Therefore, the upper portion of
through a secondary locking the lid cannot be completely
section providing a visual lifted from the lower portion of
indication of lid from the the lid. It is further submitted
container is being opened; and that the Defendant’s product is
said secondary locking section intended to be opened only
consisting of secondary lock from three sides. However, if a
with protrusion person intentionally breaks the
fourth side and removes the lid
and lifts the lid completely that
would not amount to
infringement17.8. The fact that the Impugned Goods do not infringe the claims of
the Suit Patent I, the Defendant is also invoking the Doctrine
of Gillette Defence based on D1. D1 discloses a tamper-proof
and tamper evident closure system wherein the upper portion
of the lid opens from three sides, and the fourth side is fixed
with the lower portion of the lid in a hinged manner. Further, it
is not a pre-requisite that to invoke Gillette Defence, the
Defendant must copy the prior art in its entirety. This argument
of the Plaintiff is incorrect as the only requirement is that the
Impugned Goods should be substantially based on the prior art.
17.9. The Plaintiff cannot invoke Doctrine of Equivalence or Pith
and Marrow and equate that the use of tear band and tear path
on three sides tantamount to the infringement of Suit Patent I
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 33 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
as any such argument would only lead to the conclusion that
Suit Patent I is invalid in view of D1. This is because if the
presence of tear band / tear path on three sides is equivalent to
the presence of tear band / path on three sides than D1 would
become a valid prior art to challenge the validity of Suit Patent
I.17.10. Suit Patent I is frivolous and does not involve technical
improvement, rather, the language of the granted claims
indicates inherent effect of the generic components employed
in the industry. Suit Patent I is granted without any merit. Suit
Patent I is not an invention and lacks novelty and as such is not
patentable under Sections 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja), 3 and 64 of the Act.
Suit Patent II is a classic example of evergreening of patent.
The Plaintiff filed the Ceased Patent and the same was ceased
on 29.09.2008 and on 01.01.2009, the Suit Patent II was filed.
The Suit Patent II is frivolous and is not novel and does not
involve any inventive steps. The Suit Patent II is generic in
nature and have abundance of prior art. The process for
manufacturing of tamper-proof lid having leak proof spout for
containers is well-known to the person skilled in the art,
generic and are widely used in the field by different companies.
The learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant relied upon the
following decisions while making the above submission:
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 34 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
a. F. Hoffmann-LA Roche Ltd. and Anr. (supra)
b. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH & Co. KG. v. Vee
Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Others,
2023 SCC OnLine Del 1889
c. Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Natco Pharma Limited, 2023
SCC OnLine Del 3921
17.11. The Plaintiff had shown a wrong lid to this Court during
arguments which was different from the Suit Patent II. The lid
shown during arguments and filed as documents to the Suit is
different. Drawing of Suit Patent II and image of the product
filed in document and shown by the Plaintiff is reproduced
hereunder:
Drawing of Pending Patent Product filed by Plaintiff
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 35 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
Product shown in Court17.12. The lid which is defined in the drawing of Suit Patent I and
image of product correspond to the drawing of Suit Patent I is
reproduced hereunder:
Figure I
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 36 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
Figure II17.13. The Plaintiff had during the course of the Rejoinder arguments
tried to argue that the seal, which is disclosed in the Ceased
Patent is fitted from outside and is made from a metal. It
appears to be an afterthought which would become evident
from the fact that the seal is made from a thermo plastic
material as shown in claim no. 2. Further, nowhere in the
Complete Specification is it mentioned that the tamper-proof
sealing is fitted from outside. On the contrary, a perusal of the
Complete Specification would show that the tamper-proof seal
is connected from inside. The same would be evident from the
steps which have been mentioned in the Complete
Specification. Further, the Plaintiff has in its Replication
responded to the argument of invalidity of its Suit Patents I and
II and that what the Defendant is using is a part of prior art thanSignature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 37 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
the Plaintiff cannot now argue that the Defendant has not taken
this plea in its Written Statement.
REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
18. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that:
18.1 During the course of arguments, the Defendant has only
invoked the Doctrine of Gillette Defence to argue non-
infringement in respect of the Suit Patents I and II and the
Defendant’s Counsel has specifically said that he is not raising
invalidity issue and accordingly, the ‘credible challenge
argument’ was not raised. In the first round when the interim
injunction application was argued before the learned Trial
Court, the Defendant did not invoke the Doctrine of Gillette
Defence. Instead, the Defendant raised the argument of
credibility of challenge to the validity of the Suit Patents I and
II before the learned Trial Court. The aforesaid is also clear
from the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the learned Trial
Court. The said judgment has been subsequently set aside by
the Division Bench of this Court, and the matter has been
remanded back before the Court for fresh adjudication of the
interim injunction issue. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff
placed reliance upon the decision in Dura-line India Pvt. Ltd.
v. Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., Neutral Citation:
2025:DHC:4036 and Rules 2(f) and 3(B) of the High Court of
Delhi Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022 while making the
above submission.
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 38 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
18.2 The Impugned Goods are not covered under the prior art D1
and hence, the Doctrine of Gillette Defence argument of the
Defendant fails. D1 does not show at least the following
features which are present in the Impugned Goods:
a. A lid having (i) a primary portion, (ii) a tear band and (iii) a
secondary portion. Instead, D1 shows a container wherein
the lid is attached with the container with a tear band and
upon partial removal of tear band, the lid remains attached
with the container through a hinge mechanism.
b. In D1, there is no disclosure of the secondary portion in lid
which is attached to primary portion through a tear band
wherein the secondary portion is designed to be separated
from the tear band and gets permanently attached to the
container.
c. There is no disclosure of secondary locking section in D1.
18.3 Contrary to settled law that in order to succeed on the Doctrine
of Gillette Defence, the Defendant must rely upon a single prior
art and show that the Impugned Goods are in accordance with
the said prior art, the Defendant at the fag-end of their
arguments, placed reliance on the Prior Patent, Plaintiff’s
Pending Patent in addition to prior art D1 to supplement the
various aspects of its products. Such invocation of multiple
documents itself evidences that the Impugned Goods do not fall
under the description and disclosures made in D1.
18.4 Further, Suit Patent I is patently distinct from the claims sought
to be protected under the Pending Patent. Referring to theSignature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 39 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
disclosure of Suit Patent I, the specific features “said tear band
(6) present on the outer wall (4) of the lid (1) when peeled along
the said tear path to permit upper primary portion (7) of the
said lid (1) to be completely lifted from the open top while the
lower secondary portion (8) of the said lid (1) remains attached
to a container (2) through a secondary locking section(8)
providing a visual indication of lid (1) from the container (2) is
being opened.” are not disclosed in any portion of the Pending
Patent. Further, the Pending Patent is directed to a specific
locking mechanism between the lid and the container which is
distinct from the locking mechanism provided as per teachings
of Suit Patent I. Suit Patent I further provided a lid and
container combination with tamper evident features which are
not claimed in the Pending Patent.
18.5 The argument of the Defendant that the Impugned Goods do
not have the inner wall, the outer wall and the inverted U-
shaped peripheral channel are incorrect. The claimed features
of Suit Patent I include the outer wall, the inner wall and the
inverted U-shape peripheral channel in the Impugned Goods
can be clearly identified from the expert report filed by the
Defendant itself.
18.6 There is no pleading about the Doctrine of Gillette Defence
i.e., that the Impugned Goods map to the Ceased Patent. The
Defendant only referred to the drawing of the Ceased Patent
and claimed that the Impugned Goods are covered under the
Ceased Patent. The drawing can be used as a prior art only
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 40 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
when it shows all the claimed structural features and how they
are put together. The drawings of the Ceased Patent (or even
the Complete Specification of the Ceased Patent) fail to
disclose the novel and inventive features as claimed / specified
under the claims of the Suit Patent II. For a drawing to enable
disclosure, the drawing must show all the claimed structural
features and how they are put together. Merely having similar
terminologies would not render the drawings as enabling and
the subsequent patent as obvious. The drawings of the Ceased
Patent in no manner reveal the claimed structural features of
the Suit Patent II and the manner in which the claimed elements
of Suit Patent II are put together. The combination of lid and
spout as seen in the Impugned Goods are structurally and
technically different from the Ceased Patent.
18.7 There is no similarity between Suit Patent II and the Ceased
Patent, and the Ceased Patent does not anticipate Suit Patent II.
Suit Patent II provides a tamper proof lid having leak proof and
pilfer proof spout for containers along with a process for the
manufacture of tamper-proof lid having leak proof and pilfer
proof spout for containers whereas, Suit Patent II discloses just
a pull up spout with a tamper proof seals fixed to the lid /
closure on the hole provided in the pail. The inventive step in
Suit Patent II lies in the main lid body providing for a spout
region adapted to secure spout base and including a cylindrical
downwardly and vertically extending wall defining a shrink fit
area for leak proof press fit securing of the spout base with
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 41 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
respect to a matching exterior profile of the spout base and a
tail ring area contiguous to said vertically downwardly
extending wall adapted for further leak proof securing of the
spout base with respect to the spout region in said main lid
body. In Suit Patent II, the spout base comprises of a
substantially ‘M-shaped’ circular leak proof end member
adapted to reach and corresponds to an internal profile of the
lid member at said spout region. The said ‘M-shaped’ portion
and in particular an external free arm of said ‘M-shaped’
member of the spout base is adapted to juxtapose against a
matching profile of the vertically extending cylindrical wall
defining a shrink fit area of said spout region of the lid for a
perfect leak-proof assembly. The Ceased Patent, on the other
hand, provides a pull up spout with tamper proof seal fixed to
the lid / closure on the hole provided in the pail, having a
tamper proof seal having a tongue, mounted on a sealing ring
which is adopted to hold and support a flexible extendable
spout.
18.8 The Defendant has failed to raise any pleading as to how the
Impugned Goods do not infringe the claims of the Suit Patents
I and II. It is trite that parties are required to raise proper
pleadings and establish those by adducing evidence. The Court
cannot go beyond the pleadings of the parties. Reliance was
placed upon the decision in Arikala Narsa Reddy v. Venkata
Ram Reddy Reddygari and Anr., 2014 SCC Online SC 100
while making the above submission.
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 42 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
18.9 In the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court
in the present Suit, it is clearly recorded that the Defendant
argued product v. product comparison. In fact, when the
Plaintiff filed an appeal against the order dated 02.05.2024, it
was one of the main grounds of appeal that the learned Trial
Court erred in accepting product v. product comparison
argument presented by the Defendant. The Division Bench
accepted this ground and reversed the said order vide judgment
dated 11.07.2025.
18.10 The Defendant makes a misplaced argument that the Plaintiff
has shown a wrong product to the Court and the product which
is in market is not the Suit Patent I patent but the one shown in
the Pending Patent. The Division Bench vide judgment dated
11.07.2025 has clearly set out that for determining the question
of infringement of patent, the claims of the granted patent are
to be compared with the accused product.
18.11 It is a well settled law that in order to address the issue of
balance of convenience between parties, in patent infringement
suits, one of the important factor courts take into account as to
whether a defendant has attempted to clear the way or not
before launching its product in the market. The obligation of
clearing the way entails a defendant challenging validity of
patents by way of revocation petition or post grant opposition
before launching its product in the market. Though this
obligation is based on the principle of constructive knowledge,
adherence to obligation of clearing the way becomes more
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 43 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
important in cases where there is evidence that defendant has
some past connection with plaintiff or knowledge about
Plaintiff’s technology. Reliance was placed upon the decisions
in Eisai Co. Ltd. and Another v. Satish Reddy and Another,
2019 SCC OnLine Del 8496 Merck Sharp (supra) while
making the above submission.
18.12 The Defendant has not placed on record any document to
establish that Mr. Sunil Bajaj joined Defendant only in 2023.
The fact that the CEO of the Defendant’s company was
previously a distributor of the Plaintiff’s product cannot be
dismissed as a mere coincidence. It clearly indicates transfer of
knowledge and the mala fide attempt on part of Defendant to
unlawfully exploit the commercial success of Plaintiff’s
products and technical know-how thereof with a clear intention
to unlawfully exploit Plaintiff’s proprietary technology. This
also gives rise to an increased obligation on the Defendant to
have “cleared the way” before manufacturing and marketing
the Impugned Goods infringing upon the Plaintiff’s Suit
Patents I and II.
18.13 The Defendant’s subsequent registration of designs is identical
to the Plaintiff’s registered Designs Nos. 299039 and 299041,
both dated 01.11.2017 on a much later date, i.e., 22.06.2019, is
significant and shows contradictory stands of the Defendant.
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 44 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
18.14 The Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of
this Court challenging the findings in the order dated
20.08.2025 passed in suit filed against Neway, whereby the
learned Trial Court declined interim injunction in relation to
Suit Patent II. The said appeal was decided vide Neway
Judgment by the Division Bench of this Court, wherein the
finding regarding the invalidity of the Suit Patent II was
quashed and remanded back for consideration afresh and the
order dated 08.10.2024 granting interim injunction in favour of
the Plaintiff was restored.
18.15 The learned Trial Court has shifted the burden of proving
novelty upon the Plaintiff in the order dated 20.08.2025, which
is contrary to settled law as laid down in Moldtek Packaging
Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The onus to prove invalidity lies upon the
Defendant, who must demonstrate a “credible challenge” to
validity at the interlocutory stage.
18.16 The learned Trial Court erred in assuming any duty upon the
Plaintiff to disclose the Ceased Patent. The burden to establish
relevance of prior art lies exclusively on the Defendant under
Sections 64 and 107 of the Act. The Defendant’s reference to
alleged prior arts and prior use was accepted by the learned
Trial Court without comparing the granted claims of the Suit
Patent I with any prior art to conclude lack of novelty, inventive
step, or prior use, as reflected in the order dated 20.08.2025.
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 45 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
VALIDITY:
SUIT PATENT I
19. The invention claims a leak-proof container having a tamper evident
leak-proof container. The said tamper-evident container comprises of a tear
band which is manually removed before opening the container to get access
to the content therein. The field of the invention of the Suit Patent I which is
reproduced from the Complete Specification is hereunder:
“FIELD OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates to a leak-proof pail or container, especially a
tamper evident leak-proof pail or container. The said tamper-evident
pail or container comprises of compatible closures and particularly
an arrangement wherein the closure is provided with a tear band
which is manually removed to facilitate opening the pail or container
for access to the content therein.
The invention is also related to a pail-closure combination
comprising features that enable vertical load-transfer during
stacking.”
20. The object of the invention is to provide a container closure that can be
readily applied by hand and can be removed with equal ease with the use of
hand. Additionally, another object of the present invention is to provide a
closure with a tamper-evident feature and a tear band. The object is
reproduced hereunder:
“OBJECT OF TIIE INVENTION
It is therefore the object of the invention to provide a new and
improved container closure that can be readily applied by the hand
and can be removed with equal ease with the use of hand.
Another object of the invention is to provide a closure with a tamper-
evident feature and a tear band.
Still another object of the invention is to provide a closure with a
special locking feature for a container, particularly a pail.
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 46 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
Yet another object of the invention is to provide a closure in
combination with a container, which facilitates stacking of filled
containers one above the other with minimum risk factor.
Still another object of the invention is to provide a closure, where after
the removal of the tear band, a piece of the closure remains intact with
the container indicating the tampering of the container.
Future object of the invention is to provide a closure fitment to the
container, where the load on the closure would be transferred through’
the rim and onto the body of the container, thereby ensuring increased
stacking load,Yet another object of the invention is to provide a container with
reinforcing ribs a’ web which improves the strength-to-material
and/or strength-to-weight ratios and also enhances the polymer flow
during moulding with lower energy.”
21. The summary of the Suit Patent I states that the present invention
claims container comprising of a tear band providing security from tampering
and indicates when tampered with. The summary is reproduced hereunder:
“SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention is a closure having multi-functionality that
comprises features which are highly desirable, in combination with a
container comprising a tear band that further provides security from
tampering and indicating when tampered Such a closure and
container combination is particularly useful for the shipment, storage
and marketing of products such as pel. food, paints etc., which are not
fully consumed in a single serving or distribution but may be
dispensed over a period – days or weeks.
As is hereinafter described, the container and closure combination of
the present invention provides a closure which is readily manually
altered by the removal of the tear band for opening but provides for
easy and secure closing and reopening after removal of-the tear band.
Further features include a structure which enhances the stability by
transferring the stacking loads through the closure structure to the
sidewall of the container. A further feature of the present invention is
the production of a container with substantial hoop strength and
structural stability rendered by the plurality of reinforcing side wall
structures.
A further feature of the invention is the provision of a means to
facilitate easy lifting and tipping of the container for the purpose ofSignature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 47 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
pouring contents therefrom during use. To provide a 100% fool-proof
tamper-evidence to the pack, during the closure fitment, the lugs
penetrate into spring-back hinges of the pail, to get locked. The said
lugs once locked cannot be de-locked (hereof. As die said lugs get
interlocked into tie pail’s spring-back hinges, to open the closure,
these lugs have to be separated- from the closure, by peeling off the
strip all around the closure. After peeling off and removing the strip
from die closure, a provision is made to lift the closure off from (he
container to detach from the primary lock. The curved wavy profiles
are precociously designed to minimize the warpage.”
22. Suit Patent I has two independent claims. The independent claims of
the Suit Patent I are reproduced hereunder:
“Claims:
1. A tamper-evident lid comprising of; a tamper-evident means having
i) one or more tear bands (6) in outer wall (4) of the said lid (1)
between the primary section (7) and the secondary section (8) of the
lid (1); ii) a tear path extending continuously around the said lid (I);
and iii) at least one starting knob (6a) contiguous to the said tear
bands (6); characterized in that, said tear band (6) present on the
outer wall (4) of the lid (1) is peeled along the said tear path to permit
upper primary portion (7) of the said lid (1) to be completely lifted
from the open top while the lower secondary portion (8) of the said
lid (1) remains attached to a container (2) through a secondary
locking section(8) providing a visual indication of lid from the
container (2) is being opened; and said secondary locking section(8)
consisting of a secondary lock (11) with a protrusion.
2. The tamper-evident lid as claimed in claim 1, wherein the tear path
is defined by score lines or discrete frangible bridges or ribs
extending across a gap between the tear band (6) and the remainder
of the closure.
3. The tamper-evident lid as claimed in claim 1, wherein the
secondary lock (11) comprises lugs that penetrate into springback
hinges (26) of the container (2).
4. The tamper-evident lid as claimed in claim 1 wherein the lid (1)
comprises at least one or more finger gripping portions (10).
5. The tamper-evident lid as claimed in claim 1 includes a leakproof
Means comprising of:
i) an inverted U shaped peripheral channel defined by the outer wall
(4) and the inner wall (5) of the said lid (1);
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 48 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
ii) a rim section (14) on the inner side of the lid (1) beside the inner
wall (5);”
23. To determine the novelty of the Suit Patent I, the Prior Patent and D1
were cited by the Defendant. The claim mapping of the Suit Patent I and the
Prior Patent are hereunder:
CLAIMS SUIT PATENT I PRIOR PATENT
Claim 1 A tamper-evident lid A container with lid locking
comprising of: involving pilfer proof arrangement
a tamper-evident means comprising:
having lid body portion comprising of two
i) one or more tear bands (6) in separable portions comprising an
outer wall (4) of the said lid (1) upper portion and a lower portion
between the primary section connected there between through a
(7) and the secondary section tamper evident peel off member
(8) of the lid (1); characterized in that after
ii) a tear path extending assembling of the lid with respect
continuously around the said to the container the removal of the
lid (1); and peel off member is adapted to
iii) at least one starting knob separate the said upper corporation
(6a) contiguous to the said tear from the lower portion indicating
bands (6); the first opening of the lid, wherein
characterized in that, said tear said upper portion of the lid having
band (6) present on the outer an internal lock region adapted to
wall (4) of the lid (1) is peeled cooperate with a corresponding
along the said tear path to inter lock portion of the container
permit upper primary portion body at the top to provide for a
(7) of the said lid (1) to be inner lock between the lid upper
completely lifted from the portion and the container body
open top while the lower enabling the lid upper portion
secondary portion (8) of the detachably capped on the container
said lid (1) remains attached to as a releasable and reusable lid and
a container (2) through a wherein said lower portion of the
secondary locking section(8) lid body having at least one
providing a visual indication extended segment having an
of lid (1) from the container (2) external lock region adapted to
is being opened; and said cooperate with a corresponding
secondary locking section(8) externally protruding flaps
consisting of a secondary lock disposed in the container body and
(11) with a protrusion (100). adapted such that during capping
the said extended segment of the
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 49 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
lid is pressed down through
adjacent slotted regions formed in
the container body in relation to the
said flaps of the container body
whereby finally the external lock
region of the lid lower portion get
arrested with respect to the flaps
and the slots for a permanent
securing of the lower portion with
respect to the container body.
Claim 2 The tamper-evident lid as A container with lid locking
claimed in claim 1, wherein involving pilfer proof arrangement
the tear path is defined by as claimed in claim 1 comprising:
score lines or discrete a circular lid body portion
frangible bridges or ribs comprising of two separable
extending across a gap portions comprising an upper
between the tear band (6) and portion and a lower portion
the remainder of the closure. connected therebetween through a
tamper proof peel off member such
that after assembling of the circular
lid with respect to the circular top
of the container the removal of the
peel off member separates the said
upper portion from the lower
portion indicating the first opening
of the lid, said upper portion of the
lid having a circular internal lock
region adapted to cooperate with a
corresponding circular inter lock
portion of the container body at the
top to provide for an inner lock
therebetween the lid upper portion
and the container body, the lower
circular portion of the lid body
having plurality of spaced apart
extended segments each having an
external lock region adapted to
counteract with plurality of spaced
apart corresponding externally
protruding hinged flaps disposed in
the container body and adapted
such that during capping the saidSignature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 50 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
extended segments of the lid lower
portion are pressed down through
correspondingly disposed and
equally spaced apart slotted
regions formed in the container
body in relation to the said flaps of
the container body whereby finally
the plurality of the external lock
regions of the lid lower portion get
arrested with respect to the
corresponding flaps and the slots
for a permanent securing of the lid
lower portion once assembled with
respect to the container body.
Claim 3 The tamper-evident lid as A container with lid locking
claimed in claim 1, wherein involving pilfer proof arrangement
the secondary lock (11) as claimed in any one of claims 1
comprises lugs that penetrate or 2 wherein a silicone gasket is
into spring-back hinges (26) of provided internally inside the lid
the container (2). top region adjacent the container
top such as to ensure the content
packed are maintained in the
container leak proof and free of
contaminations from outside and
also adapted as a semi shock
absorber and stability in stacking
while the containers are stacked
one above other during
transit and as well as in floor
stacking condition.
Claim 4 The tamper-evident lid as A container with lid locking
claimed in claim 1 wherein the involving pilfer proof arrangement
lid (1) comprises at least one or as claimed in anyone of claims 1 to
more finger gripping portions 3 wherein the number of the spaced
(10). apart extended segments of the lid
lower region and the
corresponding hinged flaps and
slots in the container body is based
on the container size and capacity
preferably comprising 16 nos. or 8
nos. or 4 nos. with the numbers
decreasing as per the decrease inSignature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 51 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
the size and capacity of the
container.
Claim 5 The tamper-evident lid as A container with lid locking
claimed in claim 1 includes a involving pilfer proof arrangement
leak-proof means comprising as claimed in anyone of claims 1 to
of: i) an inverted U-shaped 4 wherein said slots in the
peripheral channel defined by container body comprise plurality
the outer wall (4) and the inner of correspondingly spaced apart
wall (5) of the said lid (1); ii) a slots provided on an external
rim section (14) on the inner circular flanged extension of the
side of the lid (1) beside the container body disposed just above
inner wall (5); iii) a primary the said hinged flaps.
section (7) consisting of a
primary lock (9) with a
protrusion (99) towards the
inverted U-shape peripheral
channel that cooperates with
radially outwardly extending
lip (30) on open end of side
wall (13) of the container (2)
for detachable locking of the
container (2) with the lid (1).
Claim 6 A tamper-evident leak-proof A container with lid locking
lid and container combination involving pilfer proof arrangement
for the transfer of load from as claimed in anyone of claims 1 to
the said lid to the said 5 wherein said internal lock is
container comprising of: adapted such that after the removal
a) a tamper-evident lid (1) of the peel off tab, the detached
comprising having: i. one or upper lid portion can be press fitted
more tear bands (6) in outer with respect to the container top as
wall (4) of the said lid (1) a releasable lid for the container for
between the primary section subsequent uses.
(7) and the secondary section
(8) of the lid (1); ii. at least one
starting knob (6a) contiguous
to the said tear bands (6),
whereby said tear band present
on the outer wall (4) is peeled
along the said tear path to
permit upper primary portion
(7) of the lid (1) to be
completely lifted from open
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 52 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
top while the lower secondary
portion (8) of the lid (1)
remains attached to the
container through a secondary
locking section (8) providing a
visual indication of lid (1)
from the container (2) is being
opened; iii. said secondary
locking section (8) consisting
of a secondary lock (11) with a
protrusion (100); iv. an
inverted U-shaped peripheral
channel defined by the outer
wall (4) and the inner wall (5)
of the lid (1); v. a rim section
(14) on the inner side of the lid
(1) beside the inner wall (5),
wherein the said rim section
(14) comprises of one or more
stiffening ribs (12) around the
inner wall (5) of the said rim
section (14); and vi. a primary
lock (9) on a primary section
(7) consisting of a protrusion
(99) towards the inverted U-
shape peripheral channel;
b) said container (2) having:
i. a side wall (13) with an open
top forming a U-shaped
channel; and ii. a base;
wherein the side walls (13) of
the said container (2) are
tapered as they project wherein
the side walls (13) of the said
container (2) are tapered as
they project. from the base to
the top of the said container
(2); and thereby enabling the
rim section (14) of the said lid
(1) snugly fit into the U
channel of the said container
(2).
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 53 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
Claim 7 The tamper-evident leak-proof A container with lid locking
lid and container combination involving pilfer proof arrangement
as claimed in claim 6, wherein as claimed in any one of claims 1
the container (2) comprises a to 6 wherein both said internal lock
reinforcing web on one or and external locks comprise of
more of the sidewalls (13) of corresponding mutually abutting
the container (2), with the inter-locking regions of the lid
reinforcing web being formed upper portion and the lid lower
by an uninterrupted repeating portion with respect to
geometric pattern. correspondingly disposed
container body portions at the top
and in the region of the extended
segment of the lid lower portion
respectively.
Claim 8 The tamper-evident leak-proof A container with lid locking
lid and container combination involving pilfer proof arrangement
as claimed in claim 6, wherein as claimed in anyone of claims 1 to
the tamper-evident lid 7 wherein the lid and the container
comprises at least one or more body are obtained on polymeric
protruded segments (111) at material.
the corners of the top surface
of the said lid (1) for
orientation of the containers in
a stacked position.
Claim 9 The tamper-evident leak-proof
lid and container combination
as claimed in claim 6,
comprises axially oriented
stacking ribs (555) on the inner
side of the wall of the said
container, and are distributed
around the corners which can
be engaged by at least one
stacking rib of a container
located beneath it, during
stacking of multiple empty
containers, thereby fixing the
containers in place in a non-
rotating fashion relative to
each other.
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 54 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
24. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that Suit Patent I has
secondary locking mechanism in the lower secondary portion having lugs in
the lid as well as the corresponding portion in the container having spring
back hinges, which is not present in the Prior Patent, but it is available in the
Impugned Goods. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff further submitted that
the inverted U-shaped peripheral channel defined by outer wall and inner wall
of the lid are claimed by claim no. 5 of the Suit Patent I, which is not disclosed
by the Prior Patent.
25. The independent claim no. 1 of the Suit Patent I, claims lid (1) which
remains attached to a container (2) through a secondary locking section (8)
providing a visual indication of lid (1) from the container (2) is being opened.
The secondary locking section (8) consisting of a secondary lock (11) with a
protrusion (100). On the other hand, the claim no. 1 of the Prior Patent claims
a lid “… wherein said upper portion of the lid having an internal lock region
adapted to cooperate with a corresponding inter lock portion of the container
body at the top to provide for a inner lock between the lid upper portion and
the container body…”.
26. The features of the claim no. 6 of the Suit Patent I are absent in the
Prior Patent. Claim no. 6 of the Suit Patent I is an independent claim which
claims a tamper-evident leak-proof lid and container combination for the
transfer of load from the said lid to the said container which is comprising of
a tamper-evident lid having one / more tear bands (6) in outer wall (4) of the
said lid (1), and the said secondary locking section (8) consisting of a
secondary lock (11) with a protrusion (100). The tamper-evident lid (1) also
has an inverted U-shaped peripheral channel defined by the outer wall (4) and
the inner wall (5) of the lid (1). It further contains a primary lock (9) on a
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 55 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
primary section (7) consisting of a protrusion (99) towards the inverted U-
shape peripheral channel. Further, claim no. 6 also claims the container (2)
having a side wall (13) with an open top forming a U-shaped channel, and a
base. This is absent in the Prior Patent.
PRIOR ART D1
27. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that D1 discloses a
plastic container as well as closure combination in which the tear band is
removed between upper and lower locking structure from 3 sides while the
lid remains attached from the fourth side through the hinge mechanism. It is
pertinent to examine the Complete Specification of D1. The “Detailed
Description” of the Complete Specification of D1 is reproduced hereunder:
“12. A second undercut 44 is formed at a distance below the first
undercut 43 to cooperate with the flange, 32 in providing a second
locking mechanism to help secure the closure 14 to the container 12.
Between the two undercuts 43 and 44, a pair of spaced parallel tear
paths 46 and 48 extend continuously but not fully around the
periphery of the closure as shown in FIG. 1, said tear path
terminating at oppositely similar C-shaped openings 52 and 54
between which is located a hinge area 56. Creases 58 are farmed in
the hinge area well below the plane of the lip 30 to assist in hinging
the closure 14 relative to the container 12 slier the tear band 50
defined by the two spaced tear paths 46 and 48 is removed. The tear
tabs 60 and 62 are ribbed or scored to enhance gripping. The tear
paths 46 and 48 tire areas of reduced thickness or may be formed by
perforations or the like in as will be apparent to persons skilled in the
plastic container art.
Once the tear band 50 has been removed between the tear
paths 46 and 48, the lower lock formed by the flange 32 in the
undercut 44 is 110 longer in effect as a tamper-evident feature, i.e.,
only the upper lock made up of the cooperating features 30 and 43
remains fully in place. However, the lower lock continues to connect
or tether the closure to the container. Because the plastic material
from which the closure and container are made is somewhat pliable,
the upper lock may be manually overcome to hinge and open the
closure relative to the container body as shown in FIG. 5.”
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 56 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
28. Therefore, D1 discloses a plastic container and closure combination
wherein the tear band is removed between upper and lower locking structure
from 3 sides. The lid remains attached from the fourth side by using a hinge
mechanism. This particularly differentiates the Prior Patent from D1.
29. The independent claim no. 1 of D1 also discloses the working of the
hinge mechanism. The relevant paragraph of the Complete Specification of
D1 is reproduced hereunder:
“I. A molded plastic container and closure combination comprising:
a plastic container having a bottom and a side wall structure
terminating in an open lop having an out-turned peripheral lip
defining a plane;
at least one outwardly projecting flange integral with said side wall
structure ad jacent to and spaced below said lip;
a plastic closure having a deck portion approximating the shape and
size of the open container top and an inverted U-shaped peripheral
channel defined by parallel spaced inner and outer walls;
a first undercut in said outer wall to mate with said lip to aid in
retaining such closure to said container;
a second undercut in said outer wall below the first under cut to mate
with said projecting flange to further aid in retaining said closure to
said container;
a peripheral flange formed around the bottom of said container.
wherein said peripheral flange is interrupted to define two opposite
smoothly curved lifting surfaces joining the side wall structure to said
bottom, said lifting surfaces being intermediate the attachment points
of said bail, whereby the container may be lifted by said bail and
tipped by one or the other of said smooth sur faces to pour from the
said container when the closure is removed;
a pair of spaced, parallel tear paths in said outer wall between said
first and second undercuts and extending continuously but not fully
around said closure and ter minating at peripherally spaced openings
on said outer wall to define a hinge area;
said hinge area lying substantially below the plane of said peripheral
lip:
said openings defining at least one starting tab contagious to said tear
paths whereby the plastic material of said outer wall between said
paths may be manually torn away to permit the upper portion of said
closure to be lifted from said open top by pivotal motion about saidSignature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 57 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
hinge area while the lower portion of said closure remains attached
to said container by way of the integral flange in said second
undercut;
said lip and said first undercut permitting the upper portion of the
closure to be re-secured to said open top by way of said lip and first
undercut.”
30. As discussed above, Suit Patent I contains a locking mechanism with
locking teeth. D1 does not have any such mechanism. Therefore, Suit Patent
I is novel with respect to D1.
INFRINGEMENT OF SUIT PATENT I:
PRIOR ART D1
31. The locking mechanism, including the locking teeth, is claimed in Suit
Patent I and is present in the Impugned Goods, whereas it is absent in D1. In
contrast to the Impugned Goods, D1’s lid does not feature a primary portion,
tear band, or secondary portion. Specifically, D1 discloses a container
wherein the lid is attached to the container by means of a tear band; after the
tear band is removed, the lid remains connected to the container via a hinge
mechanism.
32. Furthermore, D1 does not disclose the existence of a secondary portion
in the lid that is connected to the primary portion via the tear band. After
separation from the tear band, the secondary portion becomes permanently
affixed to the container.
33. The Defendant asserts that the Impugned Goods are equipped with a
tear band, which nevertheless opens from only three sides. According to the
Defendant, tampered evidence is defined by the presence of one or more tear
bands on the outer wall of the lid, with a tear path extending continuously
around the lid, and at least one starting knob contiguous to these tear bands.
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 58 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
The tear band situated on the outer wall enables peeling along the tear path,
allowing the upper primary portion of the lid to be fully removed from the
open top while the lower secondary portion remains affixed to the container
via a secondary locking section. This mechanism provides a visual indication
that the lid has been opened, with the secondary locking section comprising a
secondary lock featuring a protrusion.
34. The learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant, referencing the Written
Statement, argued that Suit Patent I contains a secondary locking section with
a secondary lock featuring a protrusion. The Defendant contends that the
Impugned Goods lack this feature, as the tear band only extends along three
sides. Furthermore, the Defendant asserts that if an individual deliberately
breaks the fourth side to remove and fully lift the lid, such an act does not
constitute infringement.
35. The Defendant asserts that, during the hearings, the Plaintiff presented
a lid before the Court that was not consistent with Suit Patent I. Additionally,
the Defendant stated in the Written Statement that the lid demonstrated by the
Plaintiff during the proceedings relates to the Plaintiff’s Pending Patent.
36. To determine whether the Impugned Goods infringe upon the claims of
Suit Patent I, it is necessary to conduct a mapping of the Suit Patent I’s claims
to the features of the Impugned Goods. The learned counsel for the Defendant
asserted that the Impugned Goods lack the inner and outer walls as well as the
U-shaped peripheral channel, however, the expert report provided by the
Defendant itself indicates the presence of both inner and outer walls.
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 59 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
37. The relevant extract of the expert report of the Defendant is reproduced
hereunder:
38. Accordingly, the Impugned Goods are prima facie found to infringe
independent claim no. 1 of Suit Patent I. It should be noted that although the
referenced diagram labels the channel as a ‘V-shaped channel’, its
configuration closely resembles the ‘U-shaped channel’ described in Suit
Patent I. Furthermore, the inner wall, outer wall, and operating mechanism of
the Impugned Goods fall within the scope of claim no. 1 of Suit Patent I.
Therefore, the Impugned Goods constitute an infringement of claim no. 1 of
Suit Patent I.
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 60 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
39. The expert report submitted by the Plaintiff was prepared by an
Assistant Professor from the Department of Mechanical Engineering at
Galgotia University. This report provides a comparative analysis between the
Plaintiff’s product and the Impugned Goods. However, the expert did not
correlate the claims of Suit Patent I with the Impugned Goods. The Defendant
has asserted that the product analyzed in the Plaintiff’s expert report differs
from the product covered under Suit Patent I.
40. The expert report submitted by the Defendant was prepared by an
Assistant Professor of Design at IIT Guwahati. The report bases its analysis
exclusively on comparisons between the design parameters of Suit Patent I
and those of the Impugned Goods. The Plaintiff contends that, while the
Defendant’s expert is evidently qualified in the field of Design, as indicated
by his designation, he does not possess recognized expertise in Patents.
41. Given the foregoing, the claims of the Patent in question should be
compared with either the claims of the Impugned Goods (if patented) or the
features of the Impugned Goods (if not patented). Consequently, in this
matter, the claims of the Suit Patent I ought to have been mapped against the
features of the Impugned Goods. Therefore, both expert reports are irrelevant.
VALIDITY OF THE SUIT PATENT II:
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
42. The present invention relates to a tamper-proof main lid with pull-up
spout for containers directed to providing leak proof packing as well as
transporting of contents in a safe manner with requisite measures to take care
of leakage and / or spillage. It is also to prevent the chances of adulteration.
The “Field of the Invention” of the Ceased Patent given in the Complete
Specification is reproduced hereunder:
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 61 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
“The present invention relates to container lids and in particular to
tamper proof main lid with pull-up spout for containers directed to
providing leak proof packing and transporting of contents in a safe
manner with requisite measures to arrest leakage and/or spillage or
chances of adulteration. More particularly, the leak-proof lid for
containers of the invention involving spout means is adapted to on
one hand provide the befits, of spout in the lid for user friendly and
convenient handling of the contents and on the other hand, would
ensure that the spout provision does not lead to any possible leakages
or chances of unwanted contamination. Importantly, in the lid of the
invention, the spout assembly in 100% leak proof and obtainable
involving simple tools which make is simple and cost-effective to
obtain and use. The tamper proof lid with pull-up spout means for
containers would thus provide a leak proof, safe and secured sealing
for storing/transporting and controlled dispensing of the material
packed with guaranteed quality and quantity and thus have a wide
and user friendly application as a container lid in variety of
packaging applications such as containers containing paints,
lubricants, oils and the like.”
43. The background of the invention discusses the issues with the prior arts.
The “Background Art” is reproduced hereunder:
“BACKGROUND ART
It is well known in the field of packaging for storing/transporting
various consumer items, including the liquid and/or powdered
contents that the conventional means for sealing plastic
containers/pails with lids involve locking mechanism to provide for a
safe tamper proof locking of the container with the lid such as to avoid
any unauthorized use / access into the container and its contents.
While the containers with lid sealing arrangement for various
products in the similar category are, known to be adapted to provide
tampering and leak proof lid locking with respect to the container
body yet lids with reliable leak proof spout assembly mounted on said
lid was necessary for safe and easy dispensing avoiding
spoilage/spillage of the contents, as and when required at the user
end, ensuring safe storage/transportation of contents continue to be
the need the art. Moreover, to ensure customer satisfaction and
guaranteed purity ,/quality’ and quantity of the packed contents, it is
required to provide, for tamper proof as well as spillage/leakage free
sealed container lid with spout means which would not only ensure a
leak proof sealing there between the container and the lid but alsoSignature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 62 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
there between the lid and the spout means operatively connected to
the lid. Thus, the presently available container lids, with spout means
continue to suffer from some inherent limitations especially in
ensuring a safe and leak-proof operative connection, there between
the lid and the spout means connected thereto for easy and safe
dispensing of contents. Such serious shortcomings in existing lid
construction also affected maintaining desired quality and quantity of
contents for better customer satisfaction and confidence and thus
could not completely avoid the unwanted pilferage/spoilage/spillage
related problem of lids with such spouts. There has thus been a
persistent need for providing a tamper proof lid with spout assembly
which would be leak proof and such that said spout assembly is
capable on one hand for dispensing said contents as and when
required in a safe user friendly manner free of any undesired gurgling
effect while on the other hand maintain desired quality and functional
attributes of contents free of any spillage/spoilage or unauthorized
adulteration during storage/transit/use of the contents.”
44. The basic object of the invention is to provide a tamper-proof lid having
a spout for containers that would ensure leak proof securing of the spout in
the lid for the safe and secured storage and use of contents which is free of
any leakage / spillage. The “Objects of the Invention” of the Ceased Patent
given in the Complete Specification is reproduced hereunder:
“OBJECTS OF THE INVENTION
It is thus the basic object of the present invention to provide a tamper
proof- lid with spout for containers which would ensure perfect leak
proof securing of the spout in the lid for desired safe and secured
storage/transit/use of contents free of any unwanted
leakage/spillage through the spit means or its operative connection
to the lid body.
A further object of the present invention is directed to providing a
spout assembly for plastic moulded lids for plastic containers wherein
a secured leak proof inter-locking is achieved between the spout base
with respect to the main lid body.
A still further object of the present invention is directed to providing
a for the moulded cap for containers which would on one hand
favour the desired easy dispensing of the contents from inside the
container avoiding undesired gurgling effect or spillage when the
spout closure is removed from the spout assembly and on the otherSignature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 63 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
hand will ensure that there is absolutely no leakage through the spout
assembly when the spout is kept closed even in case of any inclined
disposition of. the container and its contents.
A still further object of the present invention is directed to providing
a process for the manufacture of the moulded main cap for plastic
containers and the like with said spout assembly such that on one
hand it would favour the desired easy dispensing of the contents from
inside the container avoiding undesired gurgling effect or spillage
when-the spout closure is removed from the spout assembly and on
the other hand will ensure that there is absolutely no leakage through
the spout assembly when the spout is kept closed even in case of any
inclined disposition of the container and its contents.
A still further object of the present invention is directed to providing
a lid with spout assembly involving tamper proof and leak proof
construction which would provide desired 100% sealing of the spout
assembly to the main cap, ensuring safe storing/handling or
dispensing for consumption.”
45. The “Summary of the Invention” is reproduced hereunder:
“SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
It is thus the basic object of the present invention to provide a tamper
proof lid having spout for containers and the like comprising:
a main lid body having spout means comprising a spout base held
with respect to said main body and a spout closure adapted for
releasable operation of said spout means;
said lid body providing for a spout region’ adapted to secure said
spout base and including a cylindrical downwardly and vertically
extending wall defining a shrink fit area for leak proof press fit
securing of the spout-base with respect to a matching exterior profile
of the spout base and a tail ring area contiguous to said vertically
downwardly extending wall adapted for further leak proof securing
of the sprout base with respect to the spout region in said main lid
body;.
said spout closure having a downwardly protruding cylindrical
portion with a closed top adapted to press fit against the cylindrical
vertically upwardly protruding wall of the spout base and also
adapted for a leak proof fit .
*** *** ***
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 64 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
The present invention and its objects and advantages are described
in greater detail with reference to the accompanying non limiting
illustrative drawings.”
46. The “Detailed Description of the Invention”, given in the Complete
Specification of the Ceased Patent, while discussing Figure No. 1, states that
the ‘M’ shaped contour (1) that is provided on the outer most periphery of the
pull-up spout base (la) facilitate a perfect leak-proof seating of the said ‘M’
portion in the ‘shrink fit area’ of the lid / main cap (5) of the said container.
Figure No. 1 is reproduced hereunder:
47. The Figure No. 2 illustrates the Spout Closure i.e., cap portion (2) of
the pull-up spout assembly for the main lid (5) of container in which the
inverted ‘U’ type contour (3) in spout closure (2) ensures perfect leak proof
fit. Figure No. 2 is reproduced hereunder:
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 65 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
48. Figure No. 3 illustrates the assembly of the spout closure cap (2) with
the pull-up spout base (la) which is directed to provide leak proof joint of
spout assembly with the main lid of container during storage. Figure No. 3 is
reproduced hereunder:
49. Further, Figure No. 5 of the Suit Patent II in the Complete Specification
shows the ‘M’ shape portion assembled onto the shrink fit area by folding of
tail ring area which is absent in the Ceased Patent. Figure No. 5 is reproduced
hereunder:
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 66 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
50. Further, Figure No. 6 illustrates the enlarged view of the pull-up spout
fixing area of main cap. The pull-up spout fixing area of main cap is showing
positions of tail ring portion before and after the folding / spinning operation
to show the manner of implementation of achieving the complete leak proof
sealing of the spout assembly as claimed in the present the invention. Figure
No. 6 which illustrates the manner of implementation of gradual folding of
tail ring portion in successive stages using a specially contoured spinning tool,
without showing the spout assembly in place for better clarity. Figure No. 6
is reproduced hereunder:
CLAIMS MAPPING
51. The independent claims of the Ceased Patent are reproduced hereunder:
“We claim:
1. A pull spout with tamper proof seals fixed to the lid/closure on the
hole provided in the pail and the like comprising an upper tamper
proof seal (8) having a tongue, mounted on a scaling ring (1) which
in turn is adopted to hold and support a flexible extendable spout (2)
with tails (3) fixed inside its lower portion, an inner membrane scale
(6) on its upper portion and threads on its outer periphery for
engaging the inner threads of double bail (lip type) cap (4).
*** *** ***
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 67 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
8. A pull up spout with tanker proof seals fixed to die lid/closure on
die hole provided in the pail and the like substantially as herein
described and illustrated with reference to the accompanying
drawings.”
52. The mapping of the claims of Suit Patent II with the Ceased Patent is
hereunder:
SUIT PATENT II CEASED PATENT
Claim 1. A tampered proof lid Claim 1. A pull up spout with tamper
having leak proof and pilfer proof proof seals fixed to the lid/closure on
spout for containers comprising: a the hole provided in the pail and the
main lid body having spout means like comprising an upper tamper
comprising a spout base held with proof seal (8) having a tongue,
respect to said main body and a mounted on a sealing ring (1) which
spout closure adapted for in turn is adopted to hold and
releasable operation of said spout support a flexible extendable spout
means; said lid body providing for (2) with tails (3) fixed inside its lower
a spout region adapted to secure portion, an inner membrane scale (6)
said spout base and including a on its upper portion and threads on its
cylindrical downwardly and outer periphery for engaging the inner
vertically extending wall defining threads of double bail (lip type) cap
a shrink fit area for leak proof (4).
press fit securing of the spout base
with respect to a matching
exterior profile of the spout base
and a tail ring area contiguous to
said vertically downwardly
extending wall adapted for further
leak proof securing of the sprout
base with respect to the spout
region in said main lid body; said
spout closure having a
downwardly protruding cylindrical
portion with a closed top adapted
to press fit against the cylindrical
vertically upwardly protruding
wall of the spout base and also
adapted for a leak proof fit.
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 68 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
Figure 6: is the schematic
illustration
of the enlarged view of the pull-
up spout fixing area of main cap
showing positions of tail ring
portion- before and after the
folding and spinning operation
to show the manner of
implementation of achieving the
100% leak proof sealing of the
spout assembly of the invention.
Claim 9. A process for the No process disclosed
manufactured of tamper-proof lid
having leak proof and pilfer proof
spout for containers comprising: i)
forming the main lid body in a
mould; ii) ejecting the said lid
body from the mould and
immediately pushing the
assembled pull-up spout into the
shrink fit area of said lid by passing
through said circular tail area; iii)
subjecting the assembled cap to a
spinning operation to thereby
ensure the leak-proof sealing of the
sprout base with respect to the lid
body at the said spout region.
53. The table below provides a top view of the lid for both products. In the
Suit Patent II, the tamper-evident seal is integrated into the lid, while in the
Ceased Patent, the tamper-evident seal is incorporated with the spout.
Additionally, Suit Patent II does not feature a sealing ring at the top of the lid,
whereas the Ceased Patent uses a sealing ring to connect the spout to the lid.
The lower section of the lid in Suit Patent II includes an internal ring, known
as the tail ring area, which is crimped onto the spout from the lid. In contrast,
the Ceased Patent does not have a tail ring area at its base.
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 69 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
SUIT PATENT II CEASED PATENT
i. Tamper evident seal is part Tamper evident seal is part of spout
of the lid
ii. No sealing ring on top part Sealing ring is used to attach the
of lid spout from the top portion of lid.
No tail ring area at bottom.
iii. Bottom part of the lid has
inbuilt ring (tail ring area)
which is crimped onto
spout from bottom of the
Lid
54. Figure No. 6 of Suit Patent II, as discussed above, provides a schematic
view of the enlarged pull-up spout fixing area on the main cap. This
illustration demonstrates the position of the tail ring portion both before and
after the folding and spinning operation, thereby detailing the process used to
achieve the 100% leak-proof sealing of the invention’s spout assembly. The
tamper-proof lid, featuring a spout for containers and similar applications,
allows the tail rings to be folded so they bend around the lower edge of the
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 70 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
hanging arm of the M-shaped member at the spout base, enhancing the leak-
proof securing of the spout base to the lid.
55. In contrast, the Ceased Patent describes an improved pull-up spout with
tamper-proof seals that lack an upper tamper-proof seal. Here, the hole sealing
ring (1) is typically made from a specialized metal, which holds and supports
a flexible, extendable spout (2) inside its lower portion. This spout includes
eight or more tails (3), fixed internally; when extended, these tails act as an
anti-gurgling mechanism facilitating smooth, directed pouring or dispensing
of liquids from pails and similar containers.
56. The Defendant has referenced the drawings from the Ceased Patent in
submissions regarding the invalidity of Suit Patent II. It is well-established
that the claims of the patent under consideration must be compared either with
those of the prior art (if patented) or with a relevant feature of the prior art
product (if not patented). Since the drawings of the Ceased Patent do not
depict all the features claimed in Suit Patent II, the Defendant’s arguments
concerning enabling disclosure are not accepted.
57. The Neway Judgment has addressed the identical issue of invalidity
concerning Suit Patent II, remanding the matter for further consideration after
setting aside observations related to its invalidity. Consequently, the Neway
Judgment does not advantage either party, as it merely remanded the matter
for reconsideration after setting aside the findings on the invalidity of Suit
Patent, which have been independently assessed above.
INFRINGEMENT OF SUIT PATENT II:
GILLETTE DEFENSE RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT
58. The mapping of the claims of the Ceased Patent to the features of the
Impugned Goods are hereunder:
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 71 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
CEASED PATENT FEATURES OF THE IMPUGNED
GOODS
Claim1. A pull up The combination of lid and spout as seen in
spout with tamper the Defendant’s product is structurally and
proof seals fixed to the technically different from the prior art patent
lid/closure on the hole IN’276. The features claimed in the prior art
provided in the pail and IN’276 are as shown and compared with the
the like comprising an product of the defendant as follows:
upper tamper proof seal
(8) having a tongue,
mounted on a sealing
ring (1) which in turn
is adopted to hold and
support a flexible
extendable spout (2)
with tails (3) fixed
inside its lower portion,
an inner membrane
scale (6) on its upper
portion and threads on
its outer periphery for
engaging the inner
threads of double bail
(lip type) cap (4).
59. In the Ceased Patent, the tamper-proof seal is described as a component
distinct from the lid, whereas in the Impugned Goods, the lid does not
incorporate an upper tamper-proof seal. As illustrated in the preceding
images, the spout of the Impugned Goods is positioned within an area
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 72 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
analogous to the shrink-fit region identified in Suit Patent II and is affixed to
the lid via tail rings situated on its underside. The circular element observed
on the upper-outer periphery of the spout does not constitute a scaling or
sealing ring, contrary to the Defendant’s assertion. The Ceased Patent
specifies that the scaling or sealing ring is an independent component,
fabricated from metal or thermoplastic materials, expressly designed to secure
the spout to the lid. Consequently, the circular form on the spout’s upper-outer
periphery cannot be regarded as a scaling or sealing ring and is absent in the
Impugned Goods. Accordingly, it is found that the Impugned Goods do not
originate from the Ceased Patent.
CLAIMS MAPPING:
SUIT PATENT II IMPUGNED GOODS
Claim 1. A tampered proof lid having
leak proof and pilfer proof spout for
containers comprising: a main lid body
having spout means comprising a spout
base held with respect to said main body
and a spout closure adapted for
releasable operation of said spout
means; said lid body providing for a
spout region adapted to secure said spout
base and including a cylindrical
downwardly and vertically extending
wall defining a shrink fit area for leak
proof press fit securing of the spout base
with respect to a matching exterior Picture 1. picture of the lid of
profile of the spout base and a tail ring defendant product showing the
area contiguous to said vertically spout. (Extract from chart handed
downwardly extending wall adapted for over by Defendant on 16/09/2025)
further leak proof securing of the sprout
base with respect to the spout region in
said main lid body; said spout closure
having a downwardly protruding
cylindrical portion with a closed top
adapted to press fit against the
cylindrical vertically upwardly
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 73 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
protruding wall of the spout base and
also adapted for a leak proof fit.
Picture 2. Picture of the lid of
Plaintiff’s product showing the
spout.
Picture 3. showing the features
claimed under Claim 1 of Suit
Patent II
Figure 6: is the schematic illustration of
the enlarged view of the pull-up spout
fixing area of main cap showing
positions of tail ring portion- before and
after the folding and spinning operation
to show the manner of implementation
of achieving the 100% leak proof sealing
of the spout assembly of the invention.
60. In light of the foregoing, the circular shape observed on the upper-outer
periphery of the spout does not constitute a scaling or sealing ring.
Accordingly, consistent with Suit Patent II, the circular portion visible on the
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 74 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
upper-outer periphery of the Impugned Goods results from the shrink fit area
in the lower spout region. Accordingly, the Impugned Goods are prima facie
found to be infringing Suit Patent II.
CONCLUSION
Suit Patent I
61. As discussed above, Suit Patent I contains a locking mechanism with
locking teeth and D1 does not have any such mechanism. Hence, Suit Patent
I is novel with respect to D1.
62. Suit Patent I features a secondary locking mechanism located in the
lower secondary portion, comprising lugs on the lid and corresponding
components in the container equipped with spring-back hinges, a
characteristic absent from the Prior Patent. Conversely, this secondary
locking mechanism is present in the Impugned Goods. Additionally, claim no.
5 of Suit Patent I specifies an inverted ‘U-shaped peripheral channel’ formed
by the outer and inner walls of the lid, which is not disclosed in the Prior
Patent.
63. The independent claim no. 1 of Suit Patent I claims lid (1) which
remains attached to a container (2) through a secondary locking section (8)
providing a visual indication of lid (1) from the container (2) is being opened.
The features of claim no. 6 of Suit Patent I are absent in the Prior Patent.
Claim no. 6 of Suit Patent I is an independent claim that specify a tamper-
evident leak-proof lid and a container combination for the transfer of load
from the said lid to the said container. The said container is comprising of a
tamper-evident lid having one / more tear bands in outer wall of the said lid,
and the secondary locking section consists of a secondary lock with a
protrusion. Claim no. 6 also claims the container having a side wall with an
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 75 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
open top forming a U-shaped channel, and a base which is absent in the Prior
Patent. Therefore, Suit Patent I is novel as compared to the Prior Patent.
64. The above discussed channel of the Impugned Goods is ‘V-shaped
channel’, and the shape of the said channel is similar to the shape of the ‘U-
shaped channel’ of Suit Patent I. The inner wall, outer wall, and the working
mechanism of the Impugned Goods fall under the purview of the claim no. 1
of the Suit Patent I, and therefore, the Impugned Goods infringe claim no. 1
of the Suit Patent I.
Suit Patent II
65. As discussed above in Figure No. 6 of Suit Patent II illustrates the
manner of implementation of achieving the 100% leak proof sealing of the
spout assembly of the invention. The tamper proof lid having spout for
containers and the like wherein the tail rings are adapted to be folded whereby
the same bends around the lower edge of the hanging arm of the ‘M’ shaped
member of the spout base to further achieve the leak-proof securing of the
spout base with respect to the lid.
66. In contrast, the Ceased Patent details an enhanced pull-up spout
incorporating tamper-proof seals, albeit lacking the upper tamper-proof seal.
Established legal standards dictate that patent claims subject to review must
be assessed against prior art, including both patented inventions and
characteristics of non-patented products. Consequently, the Defendant’s
reliance on the Ceased Patent drawings to support arguments for the invalidity
of Suit Patent II is unsustainable. Additionally, it is noted that the drawings
related to the Ceased Patent fail to encompass all features claimed within Suit
Patent II, rendering the Defendant’s submissions regarding enabling
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 76 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
disclosure inadmissible. Accordingly, Suit Patent II is valid and novel in
relation to the Ceased Patent.
67. The circular feature located on the upper-outer periphery of the spout
does not serve as a scaling or sealing ring. In accordance with Suit Patent II,
this element observed on the upper-outer periphery of the Impugned Goods
originates from the shrink fit area in the lower region of the spout. The
Defendant’s Gillette Defense was not successful. As a result, the Impugned
Goods are within the scope of the claims under Suit Patent II and, accordingly,
are prima facie considered to be infringing Suit Patent II.
68. The Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of an interim
injunction against the Defendant. Balance of convenience is in favour of the
Plaintiff and against the Defendant. Irreparable injury would be caused to the
Plaintiff if an interim injunction during the pendency of the Suit is not granted.
69. In view of the above, the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of interim
injunction. Accordingly, the Defendant, its directors, assignee in business,
associates, affiliates, franchisees, licensees, distributors, dealers, stockists,
retailers and agents are restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for
sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in plastic container, pails,
drums, lids etc., including the range of products which infringes the Suit
Patent I, Indian Patent No. 401417 under Patent Application No.
4705/CHE/2014 titled ‘Tamper-Evident Leak Proof Pail Closure Systems’
and Suit Patent II, Indian Patent No. 298724 under Patent Application No.
20/KOL/2009 titled ‘A Tamper Proof Lid Having Spout for Containers And
Process for its Manufacture’ that may be visually, structurally and deceptively
similar to the Suit Patents I and II so as to cause infringement of the Suit
Patents.
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 77 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
70. Accordingly, both I.A. 43917/2024 filed by the Plaintiff under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and I.A. 43923/2024
filed on behalf of the Defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC stand
disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
TEJAS KARIA, J
APRIL 30, 2026
‘KC’ / ‘N’
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 944/2024 Page 78 of 78
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2026
22:26
