MKU LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. VAIBHAV GUPTA v. ASHISH KANSAL & ANR.

In the high-stakes world of defense technology, patents aren't just legal documents — they can be the difference between market dominance and being locked out entirely. When a company believes a competitor's patent on protective ballistic helmets was never deserved, the battlefield shifts from the factory floor to the courtroom. This case captures exactly that moment — the opening salvo in a fight that could reshape who controls critical safety technology in India.

Mku Limited, through its authorised representative, filed petitions before the court seeking revocation of two patents — Patent No. 332770 and Patent No. 332684 — both related to protective ballistic helmets. The respondents in the matter include Ashish Kansal and another party. The petitions were filed under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, the statutory provision that allows any person interested to challenge the validity of an already-granted patent. The dispute centers on technology designed to protect lives — helmets engineered to withstand ballistic impact — making the commercial and strategic stakes unusually high for both sides.

Mku Limited, as the petitioner, positioned itself as a party with a direct interest in seeing these two patents revoked. By invoking Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, the company signaled its belief that one or more grounds for revocation applied to these specific patents covering protective ballistic helmets. The respondents — Ashish Kansal and the other named party — were put on notice by the court, meaning they now have the opportunity to defend the validity of their patents and counter the revocation arguments. The legal friction here is classic: a challenger asserting that a granted patent should not have been granted at all, versus patent holders defending the legitimacy and scope of their intellectual property in a sensitive defense-related product category.

On 29 May 2025, the court took the petitions on record, issued notice to all respondents, and set dates for further proceedings. At this stage, the matter remains pending — no final ruling, no detailed judicial reasoning on the merits of the revocation claims has been issued. The case is now in its notice phase, with the respondents required to respond and the court poised to examine whether the grounds raised under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 have merit.

For founders and IP professionals, this case is a reminder that a granted patent is not necessarily a permanent fortress. Under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, any person interested can challenge a patent's validity — and in technology categories like defense and safety equipment, where the market is narrow and the stakes are high, such challenges can become existential battles. Startups and businesses operating in patent-sensitive sectors should (1) conduct thorough freedom-to-operate analyses before launching products, (2) be prepared to defend their patents vigorously if challenged, and (3) recognize that patent disputes in specialized fields like ballistic protection can carry reputational and commercial weight far beyond the courtroom.