Division bench of Bombay HC nixes ruling of single bench

Tri-Parulex Fire Protection System filed an appeal in the high court on January 19, 2023. File pic

A division bench of the Bombay High Court, in a rare judgment, has set aside an order passed by a single-judge bench restricting a UP-based small enterprise from manufacturing and selling a system for preventing fires in transformers.

The single-bench had allowed a petition filed by a Pune-based company against the enterprise, claiming they infringed upon a patented fire and explosion technique to win a tender floated by Adani Electricity. The division bench pointed out that the claim of the Pune-based company is baseless as the technique is used by other companies and involves processes that were discovered more than 50 years ago.

The case

CTR Manufacturing Industries Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Tri-Parulex Fire Protection System, which submitted a bid in response to a tender issued in October 2020 by Adani Electricity for the supply, installation, testing and commission of nitrogen injection fire prevention system (NIFPS) units for power transformers used for electricity distribution within Mumbai. CTR had also submitted a bid but lost as it was not the lowest bidder.

The technical specification for the NIFPS units in the tender prescribed the use of signals for activation of the unit in its auto-prevention mode but left the choice of selection of scheme or sequence in which the signals are to be received for activation of the units to the bidders.

IN PHOTOS: Witness the last ‘Courtship Dance' of Flamingos in Navi Mumbai

CTR had gone to the high court claiming that, the sequence of operation of the NIFPS unit in auto prevention mode for the tender was similar to their patent, and the specification compliance is not possible unless their patent is infringed by some other company. CTR claimed that the Tri-Parulex had not deviated from the patent they had. To get an ad-interim relief, CTR moved the high court on August 6, 2021.

An interim injunction was granted by the judge on December 19, 2022, restraining Tri-Parulex from using, manufacturing or selling its system and also circulating technical brochures/specifications/ drawings that show the impugned product. Consequently, the judge held that the moment Tri-Parulex offers a system that uses a differential relay in combination with a Buchholz relay it infringes CTR's patent.

Also Read: Maharashtra: Three booked for allegedly uploading sexually explicit videos of children on social media

The order forced Tri-Parulex to stop their supplies of NIFPS to Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) and Adani Electricity. The small enterprise alleged that drawings submitted by CTR before a single bench to prove infringement were of questionable authenticity and the court did not pay any heed to this argument. Tri-Parulex decided to challenge the order and filed an appeal on January 19, 2023.The matter was listed before a division bench presided by Justice K R Shriram and Justice Rajesh S Patil.

The main issue was whether by using a differential relay in combination with a Buchholz relay and a circuit breaker in its fire protection system, Tri-Parulex was infringing the patent that was granted to CTR.

The bench observed that the use of three integers, differential relays, Buchholz relays and circuit breakers to prevent fires and explosions is an old method and it does not give a monopoly to anyone to claim the use of these integers to the exclusion of others. The court observed that differential relays were developed in 1933, Buchholz relays were in use prior to 1925 and patents for circuit breakers have existed since 1879.

The court also noted that the CTR claimed novelty in the sequence of input signals received from the three integers. And the patent of CTR stands if the three integers are used in a particular sequence. The court observed that the use of three integers by Tri-Parulex in any sequence or combination which is enough to generate a signal that prevents explosions does not prima facie infringe the patent of CTR. The division bench while dismissing the impugned order of the single-judge bench, called it as ex-facie erroneous and it granted higher rights than what the patent granted to CTR.

Advocate Chetan Kavdia, who represented Tri-Parulex along with senior advocate Virendra Tulzapurkar among others, stated, "Our client was forced to stop their supplies of NIFPS to BHEL and Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited after the injunction passed by the single judge. As a result, the Adani order was cancelled and Tri-Parulex was also denied equal opportunity to bid in open tenders related to NIFPS. The judgment of the high court has provided a major relief to Tri-Parulex, since it allowed continuing its supply to BHEL as well as giving fair and equal opportunity to participate in future tenders."