Delhi High Court denies relief to Toyota in patent infringement claim against Indian firm

The Delhi High Court recently denied Japanese multinational Toyota’s plea seeking an interim injunction against Indian company LMW Limited over the use of an invention in spinning machines producing yarn [Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki v. LMW Limited]. 

In an order passed on July 1, Justice Saurabh Banerjee noted that Toyota’s patent has already expired on May 24, 2025, and granting an injunction of the nature sought by them would be futile.

“In view of the aforesaid analysis and reasoning, it is clear that since IN759 has already expired on 24.05.2025, this Court is precluded from passing any effective order restraining infringement of the said patent. As such, any finding on the merits by this Court would be a nullity and are likely to prejudice the fate of the present proceedings,” the Court said. 

However, the Court asked LMW to file its financial details with respect to the period starting with the date on which it began using the alleged features of the invention in question and ending with the expiry of the patent. 

“Moreover, since the aforesaid is subject to final adjudication of the other/ relevant rights and contentions raised by the parties in the present proceedings, the defendant is permitted to file the aforesaid affidavit in a Sealed Cover, which, shall be open for inspection of the plaintiff, subject to the orders of the Court,” the Court said. 

Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki (Toyota) had filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking an interim injunction against LMW for restraining the use of 'Spinpact' or any other product infringing its patent. 

According to Toyota, the patent relates to a fibre bundle concentrating apparatus located downstream of a draft machine of a spinning frame. 

Toyota said that it is engaged in the marketing and sale of yarn spinning machines with this patented technology, which LMW was seeking a revocation and invalidation of. 

LMW contended that it is not a fly-by-night operator and that it had acquired know how of the patent through a German company and developed the technology before Toyota's patent. 

It argued that the patent lacked novelty and inventive step and was conventionally known and already in public domain since it was disclosed in the prior arts. 

After considering the case, the Court said after expiry, the patent is freely available in the public domain now and there is no provision for its renewal. 

“Thus, even though the plaintiff may have a prima facie case with the balance of convenience in its favour and a likelihood of irreparable harm, loss and injury to it, the fact of expiry of the patent of the plaintiff is a crucial factor which would decide the fate of the present application” the Court said. 

Toyota was represented by Senior Advocate Chander M Lall. He was instructed by a team from Anand and Anand comprising advocates Pravin Anand, Archana Shanker, Sagar Arora, Annanya Mehan and Ashutosh Upadhyaya. 

LMW was represented by Senior Advocate Gaurav Pachnanda. He was instructed by a team from Remfry and Sagar comprising advocates Vineet Rohilla, Pankaj Soni, Debashish Banerjee, Ankush Verma, Rohit Rangi and Namrata Sinha. 

[Read Order]