Delhi High Court Refuses To Lift Interim Injunction On Mobile Brick-Making Machines In Patent Dispute

A Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav pronounced the judgment on January 16, 2026, dismissing an appeal filed by Choudhary against a 2024 interim order passed in favour of SNPC, a Haryana-based manufacturer alleging infringement of its mobile brick-making machine patents.

Upholding the Single Judge's order, the Bench held that the discretionary relief granted did not suffer from any legal infirmity calling for interference at the appellate stage.

The dispute arises from a patent infringement suit instituted by SNPC, which manufactures and exports mobile brick-making machines and holds four patents relating to automated brick-laying technology. The company alleged that the machines manufactured and sold by one Vishal Choudhary under the name “Padma” infringed its patented inventions.

The Single Judge had found that SNPC had made out a prima facie case of infringement and restrained Choudhary from manufacturing and selling the disputed machines during the pendency of the suit. Aggrieved by the grant of interim relief, Choudhary preferred an intra-court appeal.

Before the Division Bench, Choudhary raised an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, submitting that his operations were based in Haridwar and that no sale had taken place within Delhi.

Rejecting the objection, the Court held that an offer or expression of willingness to sell goods within Delhi is sufficient to maintain a suit seeking injunctive relief.

“The reason for having such opinion is that the injunction is always a proscriptive or prohibitive relief, for which an actual, confirmed or concluded transaction is not necessary,” the Court added.

On merits, Choudhary argued that his machine was fundamentally different from SNPC's patented machines, pointing to the absence of an in-built motor, cabin and steering system and arguing that his machine could move only when attached to a tractor.

The Court, however, agreed with the Single Judge that these differences pertained only to the manner in which mobility was achieved and did not differ from the presence of the central feature of the patented invention, namely the integration of the brick-making process with a mobile assembly that lays bricks on the ground as the machine moves forward.

Holding that balance of convenience favored SNPC, the Court said, “We are of the view that if an injunction as prayed were not granted, it would have seriously infringed the plaintiff's patent rights and its goodwill. In absence of injunction, the consequential loss or damage cannot be measured in terms of money.”

Finding no ground to interfere at the interim stage, the court dismissed the appeal, clarifying that all observations were prima facie in nature and would not prejudice the final adjudication of the patent infringement suit.

For Appellant: Advocates Adarsh Ramanujan, P.D.V. Srikar, Samik Mukherjee and Divyanshi Bansal

For Respondents: Advocates Anirudh Bakhru, Prakhar Singh, Nippur Sharma and Vihav Singh