Recently, the Supreme Court of India, in Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s suit for patent and design infringement and restored the case for adjudication on merits underscoring the principle that substantive rights cannot be denied due to procedural technicalities in cases of continuing infringement. The appellant, a manufacturer of industrial fans marketed under the brand “Novenco ZerAx,” alleged that the respondents, formerly its distributor, began manufacturing and selling identical fans after termination of the dealership agreement, thereby infringing its intellectual property rights. The High Court had dismissed the suit on the ground that the appellant had not complied with the pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The Supreme Court clarified the meaning of “urgent interim relief” under Section 12A, holding that in cases of continuing infringement, each act of manufacture, sale, or offer for sale constitutes a fresh wrong and recurring harm. The Court emphasised that procedural requirements such as pre-institution mediation cannot defeat substantive rights where ongoing infringement is alleged, and that urgency must be assessed in light of continuing injury, market impact, and public interest, rather than solely on the delay between discovery and filing.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr [SLP(C) No. 2753/2025]