Short Summary
The appeal challenged an order that appointed a Scientific Advisor to adjudicate a dispute over patent infringement. The plaintiff claimed his patents covered specific EV battery charging systems, while defendants were accused of infringing with 'quick interchange station' technology. The High Court confirmed the single judge's order appointing the Scientific Advisor and dismissed the appeal.
Detailed Summary
Patent disputes in cutting-edge industries like electric mobility are rarely simple. When the technology at the heart of a lawsuit involves battery charging systems and interchange stations, even the sharpest legal minds can find themselves out of their depth. This case between Sun Mobility and a patent holder shows exactly what happens when the legal system recognizes that some battles require more than just lawyers — they require scientists.
The dispute pitted Sun Mobility Private Limited against Mr. Arumugam Rajpendra Babu, a patent holder who claimed his intellectual property covered specific electric vehicle (EV) battery charging systems. Sun Mobility, operating in the EV space, was accused of infringing these patents through its 'quick interchange station' technology — a system designed to swap depleted batteries for charged ones in electric vehicles. The technical nature of the dispute quickly became apparent, as the core of the conflict revolved around how battery charging and interchange mechanisms actually functioned. When the case reached the High Court, a single judge took a procedural step that would become the central issue of the appeal: the appointment of a Scientific Advisor to help the court navigate the technical complexities.
Mr. Arumugam Rajpendra Babu, as the patent holder, argued that his patents were being infringed by Sun Mobility's quick interchange station technology. He likely contended that the technical similarities between his patented battery charging systems and Sun Mobility's operations were clear-cut. On the other side, Sun Mobility challenged the very mechanism the court was using to evaluate the dispute — specifically, the appointment of a Scientific Advisor. The appeal questioned whether this procedural step was appropriate or necessary. The legal friction centered not just on the patents themselves, but on the process by which the court intended to examine the highly technical evidence. Sun Mobility's challenge to the Scientific Advisor's appointment became the focal point of the appellate review.
The High Court reviewed the appeal and sided with the lower court's procedural decision. The court confirmed the single judge's order appointing a Scientific Advisor, finding this to be a legitimate and valid measure under Section 115 of the Patents Act. The court recognized that in disputes involving intricate technical subject matter — such as EV battery charging and interchange systems — the assistance of a Scientific Advisor is not just helpful but essential for the court to render a well-informed judgment. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the Scientific Advisor's appointment intact and allowing the technical examination of the patent infringement claims to proceed with expert support. The outcome favored Sun Mobility's position in maintaining the court's chosen approach to adjudicating the dispute.
For founders and IP professionals operating in technology-heavy sectors like electric mobility, this case underscores a critical lesson: when your patent dispute involves deeply technical subject matter, expect the court to bring in expert assistance — and don't waste resources challenging that process. Section 115 of the Patents Act empowers courts to appoint Scientific Advisors precisely because judges cannot be expected to master every technological domain. Instead of fighting the appointment of a technical expert, focus your energy on presenting clear, well-documented technical evidence that a Scientific Advisor can readily understand and evaluate. Building your patent portfolio with precise, defensible claims and maintaining thorough technical documentation can make the difference when an expert advisor is called in to scrutinize your innovation.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Sun Mobility Private Limited vs Mr. Arumugam Rajpendra Babu is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
The North Face Apparel CorpvsController of Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of its patent application (No. 202147026139) titled 'Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management' before the Madras High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of inventive step over prior art documents D21-D24. The Court held that the Controller erred by dissecting the claims into isolated elements rather than assessing the invention as a whole, and overlooked the use of spectrophotometer and invisible markers for tracking the manufacturing process, which were not disclosed in the cited prior art. The appeal was allowed and the Controller was directed to grant the patent.
Aventose Energy Private LimitedvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Aventose Energy Private Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its patent application (No. 202141019671) for a 'System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain' featuring safe mode activation upon fault detection. The Madras High Court found that the Assistant Controller had contradicted the First Examination Report (which accepted novelty) by subsequently holding the invention lacked novelty without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Controller improperly conflated novelty with inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and failed to properly analyze the claims against prior art documents D1–D4.
Apex Laboratories Pvt LtdvsElder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd, the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT (TM No. 487453 in Class 5) since 1988, sought interim injunction against Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care for using the deceptively similar mark NEO ZINCOVIT. The applicant also claimed copyright infringement of its registered artistic works (A-108878/2014) covering colour scheme, get-up, and layout. The Madras High Court was satisfied that the respondents were attempting to piggyback on the applicant's goodwill and granted interim injunctions on all three applications covering trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Radico Khaitan LimitedvsPicadilly Agro Industries Limited
This Special Leave Petition arose from a judgment dated 29-05-2026 in CS No. 8/2025 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, Haryana, concerning a trademark dispute over the marks 'Cashmere' and 'Kashmyr' used in relation to beer and vodka. The Supreme Court noted that a First Appeal (FAO-COM-11-2026) was already pending before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, listed for 28.10.2026. The Court disposed of the SLP without adjudicating it on merits, requesting the High Court to pass an appropriate order regarding the ad interim injunction on the scheduled date.
Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society (Regd.)vsMaharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University
The plaintiff, Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University, alleging infringement and passing off regarding the use of the words 'Maharaja Agrasen' in the defendant's name. The Delhi High Court had previously granted a restraint order on 10.07.2026. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a settlement dated 14.09.2026, under which the defendant agreed to change its name through a statutory amendment while being permitted limited transitional use of its existing name. The court recorded the settlement, modified the interim order accordingly, and listed the matter for compliance reporting on 13.07.2027.
Varahi Diamonds And Finance LimitedvsSahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited against Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The order is primarily procedural, dealing with the registration of the plaint, issuance of summons, directions for filing pleadings, and an interim injunction application. The matter was referred to mediation, with parties directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
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.
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.