Ajay Panwar v. Kishore Chhabra

In the high-stakes world of manufacturing and machinery, a single court order can halt your entire operation. When one party claims patent rights over a machine and copyright over its drawings, the burden shifts dramatically onto the alleged infringer to prove they are playing by a different rulebook. This case is a stark reminder that simply being the "other side" of an IP dispute is not enough — you must actively demonstrate why your product stands apart.

The dispute unfolded between Ajay Panwar, who appeared as the appellant and defendant No. 2, and Kishore Chhabra, the respondent. At the heart of the conflict was specific machinery that the respondent claimed fell under his patent rights. Beyond the patent itself, the respondent also asserted copyright protection over the drawings associated with that machinery. An earlier judgment had already been passed, restraining Ajay Panwar from using the machinery in question. Rather than accept that ruling, Panwar chose to appeal, seeking a stay on the execution of that judgment — effectively asking the court to pause the restrictions while the matter was reviewed.

Panwar's central argument was that the earlier judgment restraining him from using the machinery should not be enforced while his appeal was pending. He was essentially asking the court for temporary relief — a pause button on the consequences of the prior ruling. On the other side, the respondent stood firm on his patent and copyright claims, asserting ownership over both the machinery and its underlying drawings. The legal friction centered on whether Panwar had done enough to convince the court that his continued use of the machinery was justified, or at minimum, that the injunction should be suspended pending appeal. The question was not whether the original judgment was correct, but whether Panwar had met the threshold for staying its execution.

The court dismissed the appeal. Ajay Panwar's request to stay the execution of the earlier judgment was refused, meaning the restraint on his use of the machinery remained in force. The ruling underscored a critical principle: a party seeking relief from an IP injunction carries the responsibility of demonstrating that their product or process is fundamentally different from the protected intellectual property. Mere assertions or procedural appeals are insufficient. The court made clear that Panwar remained free to apply to the competent authority for independent registration of his own IP if he believed his machinery was genuinely distinct — but that pathway did not entitle him to a stay in the meantime.

For founders and IP professionals, this case delivers a hard-edged lesson: if you are accused of infringing a patent or copying protected drawings, you cannot rely on the appeal process alone to keep your operations running. You must come prepared with concrete evidence that your product or process is fundamentally different from the IP in question. Filing an appeal is not a shield — it is a procedural step that does not automatically pause enforcement. If you believe your innovation is genuinely independent, pursue independent registration through the proper channels, and build your evidentiary case for distinctiveness from day one. Waiting until after a restraining order is the worst possible time to start proving you are different.