Short Summary
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against infringement of Patent No.193247, but since the patent had lapsed, the suit was pursued only for damages. The defendant filed a Counter Claim seeking revocation of the subject patent. The core legal issue addressed by the court was whether the written statement to the Counter Claim could be taken on record despite not being accompanied by an affidavit of admission/denial within the stipulated time.
Detailed Summary
In intellectual property litigation, the merits of your case matter enormously, but so does the paperwork. A single missed procedural formality can collapse an entire defense, leaving a party exposed to claims they thought they were prepared to contest. The dispute between Unilin Beheer B.V. and Balaji Action Buildwell is a textbook example of how procedural discipline can be just as decisive as legal substance in patent battles.
Unilin Beheer B.V., a Dutch company known for its innovations in flooring technology, held Patent No. 193247 in India. Believing that Balaji Action Buildwell was infringing this patent, Unilin filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to stop the alleged infringement. However, by the time the matter progressed, the patent had lapsed. This changed the nature of the dispute entirely. With the patent no longer in force, Unilin could no longer seek an injunction to restrain future infringement. Instead, the suit was pursued solely for damages arising from the period when the patent was still active. In response, Balaji Action Buildwell did not simply defend against the damages claim. It went on the offensive by filing a Counter Claim, seeking revocation of the subject patent. This set the stage for a procedural showdown that would ultimately determine the trajectory of the entire case.
The central legal friction in this case was not about the validity of the patent or the scope of its claims. It was about a procedural requirement that often gets overlooked. Under the applicable rules, when a party files a written statement in response to a Counter Claim, it must be accompanied by an affidavit of admission or denial of the documents filed by the opposing party. This affidavit is not a mere formality. It serves as the formal mechanism by which a party either admits or disputes the authenticity of the documents placed on record by the other side. In this case, Balaji Action Buildwell filed its written statement to the Counter Claim, but crucially, it did not file the accompanying affidavit of admission and denial within the stipulated time. Unilin seized upon this omission, arguing that the written statement could not be taken on record without the required affidavit. The defendant, on the other hand, sought to have its written statement considered despite the missing affidavit. The legal question before the court was narrow but consequential: could the written statement be taken on record in the absence of a timely affidavit of admission and denial?
The court ruled in favor of Unilin Beheer B.V. It held that a written statement filed without the accompanying affidavit of admission and denial could not be taken on record. The court reasoned that the affidavit is a mandatory procedural requirement, and its absence within the prescribed timeframe is not a curable technicality. Because the defendant failed to file the affidavit, its written statement to the Counter Claim was not entertained. The consequences of this ruling were severe for Balaji Action Buildwell. Without a proper written statement on record contesting the plaintiff's documents, those documents were deemed admitted. This opened the door for the court to proceed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers a court to pass a judgment based on the admissions of the party who failed to file a written statement. The outcome was decisively plaintiff-favorable, with the defendant's Counter Claim effectively neutralized by its own procedural lapse.
For founders, startup leaders, and IP professionals, this case delivers a hard lesson: procedural compliance is not optional. In IP litigation, especially in matters involving patents and counterclaims, every filing must meet the technical requirements set out in the rules. A written statement without an affidavit of admission and denial is not a minor oversight. It can result in the statement being rejected, the opposing party's documents being deemed admitted, and the court proceeding to judgment against you. The practical advice is clear. When engaging in IP disputes, ensure that every procedural step is meticulously followed. Deadlines for affidavits, admissions, and denials must be tracked with the
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Unilin Beheer B.V. vs Balaji Action Buildwell 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.