The Supreme Court has reportedly decided an appeal touching on two distinct but related questions arising in patent and design infringement litigation: first, whether a patentee's delay in bringing an infringement suit can, by itself, defeat the claim or an application for interim injunction, and second, how courts should read the phrase "contemplates any urgent interim relief" in Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which otherwise makes pre-institution mediation mandatory before filing most commercial suits, including patent and design infringement actions.
In Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., reported as 2025 INSC 1256, the Court is reported to have reaffirmed the settled position that mere delay in initiating an infringement action does not have the effect of legalising the infringing conduct, and does not, standing alone, extinguish the patentee's statutory right to seek injunctive relief against continuing infringement. Delay remains a factor a court can weigh in exercising its discretion on an interim application, but it is reported not to operate as an automatic bar.
On the Section 12A question, the Court is reported to have examined when a patent or design infringement suit can be said to "contemplate" urgent interim relief, such that the plaintiff may bypass the otherwise mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement and approach the court directly. The judgment reportedly signals that courts should look at the substance of the relief genuinely being sought at the time of filing, rather than allowing the urgent interim relief exception to be invoked as a routine device for avoiding mediation in every intellectual property dispute.