Freebit As v. Exotic Mile Private Limited

CS(COMM) 884/2023

Freebit AS filed a suit seeking an injunction against Exotic Mile Private Limited regarding its granted patent, IN 276748, for an 'Improved Earpiece'. The Defendant challenged the validity of this patent by presenting evidence that corresponding foreign patents had been invalidated or refused in several jurisdictions, including based on lack of novelty.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
CS(COMM) 884/2023
Judge(s)
Prathiba M. Singh

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Freebit As vs Exotic Mile Private Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentFAO (COMM) 83/2022 & CM APPL. 25270/2022

Sterne India Private LimitedvsHaier Appliances India Pvt Ltd

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sterne India Private Limited against a District Judge's order that had appointed a Local Commissioner to seize goods allegedly infringing Haier's trademark. The court noted that the original order appeared flawed because it treated the appellant as the direct seller, ignoring its role as an online marketing platform. While staying the seizure order, the High Court mandated that Sterne provide details of all sellers on its platform using the 'HAIER' brand to properly address the infringement claims.

patentCMA(PT) No. 9 of 2024

Flipkart Internet Private LtdvsThe Joint Controller of Patents and Designs

Flipkart Internet Private Ltd filed an appeal challenging the order of the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs which dismissed a Post-grant Opposition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 312437. The opposition contended that the patent lacked novelty, inventive step, or was not patentable under various sections of the Patents Act. The High Court examined the technical aspects and found no infirmity in the impugned order.

patentCS(COMM) 196/2024 & CC(COMM) 28/2024, I.A. 5255/2024

Crystal Crop Protection LimitedvsSafex Chemicals India Limited

Crystal Crop Protection Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Safex Chemicals India Limited for infringing its registered patent no. 417213, which covers a novel weedicidal formulation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's product 'RACER' had an identical composition to the patented invention. However, while considering the interim injunction application, the Delhi High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because the element of 'dyeing agent or pigment' was not proven to be non-essential in the patent claim. Consequently, the court dismissed the injunction request.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 159/2022

Scipharm SarlvsAssistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr

Scipharm Sarl appealed the rejection of its patent application for a method enhancing engraftment of haematopoietic stem cells. The High Court allowed the appeal, permitting the appellant to amend the claims by deleting claim no.1 and retaining claims 2 to 5, and remanded the matter back to the Controller's office for further consideration.

patentCS(COMM) 1370/2025

Banayan Tree Services Ltd & Anr.vsJohn Doe & Anr. (including WhatsApp LLC)

The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in a suit concerning trademark infringement and impersonation. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file additional evidence, exempted them from mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the urgent nature of the relief sought, and directed WhatsApp (Defendant No. 2) to provide Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) for implicated mobile numbers. Furthermore, the court acknowledged the cyber fraud aspect of the case, directing steps be taken by the Cyber Police Station regarding the filed Crime Incident Report.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call