Sun Mobility Private Limited v. Mr. Arumugam Rajpendra Babu

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.