India: Delhi HC Denies Injunction For Patent Infringement Of Braun’s Catheter

Last Updated: 22 July 2009

The High Court of Delhi seems to have become one amongst the few Courts in India where Patent litigation is being pro-actively pursued. Off late, dealing with Safety IV Catheters, a Plea for an ad interim injunction was filed by Germany based B.Braun Melsungen AG along with its Indian counterpart vide B. Braun Melsungen AG & Ors. vs. Rishi Baid & Ors. IA 1234/2008 in CS (OS) 186/2008 (u/O 39 R 1 & 2 CPC) to restrain a local player Poly Medicure from infringing their patent.

B. Braun Melsung AG (hereinafter Braun) engaged in the global healthcare market, along with its co-parties moved to seek an ad interim injunction to restrain Rishi Baid and others from infringing their rights as under S. 48 of the Patents Act, 1970 with respect to safety I.V. catheters/cannulae or any other device or apparatus that infringes their Patent No. 210062. Braun sought relief in respect to the trademark VASOFIX Safety and others which use confidential information, know-how, trade secrets, data, technical input, drawings, materials and/or any other resource derived by Rishi Baid and others from Braun.

Braun claimed to be suppliers in the global healthcare market with products for anesthesia, intensive medicine, cardiology, surgery as well as services for hospitals, general practitioners and the home care sector. They also stated to be working towards optimizing working procedures in hospitals and medical practices all over the world, and focused on improving safety for patients, doctors and nursing staff. Their wholly owned subsidiary B. Braun Medical Industries Sdn. Bhd. Said to be owners of B. Braun Medical (India) Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter Braun India) which was also a party to the suit.

Braun describing an I.V. catheter to be a device to administer intravenous fluids directly to a patient' vascular system, the working of the same was also described to involve the following steps:

  1. The healthcare worker inserts the needle and catheter together into the patient's vein;
  2. After insertion into the vein with the needle point, the catheter is forwarded into the vein of the patient by the healthcare worker pushing the catheter with his or her finger;
  3. The healthcare worker withdraws the needle by grasping the hub end (opposite the pointed end) while at the same time applying pressure to the patient's skin at the insertion site with his or her free hand; and
  4. The healthcare worker then tapes the now inserted catheter to the patient's skin and connects the exposed end of the catheter (the catheter hub) to the source of the fluid to be administered into the patient's vein.

Braun identifying that the danger of the exposed needle tip resulting in an accidental needle stick which may put the healthcare workers in a position vulnerable to the transmission of various dangerous blood borne pathogens, including AIDS and hepatitis, stated that their invention of safety I.V. catheters solves the problem and results in the prevention of accidental needle sticks. They claimed that the safety I.V. catheters had been developed by several entities to achieve this result with a protective needle guard for use with a hypodermic needle.

They stated that the prior art safety I.V. catheters exhibited one or more drawbacks and possessed limited usefulness, yet had been fully accepted by healthcare workers. Braun's product was said to be a safety I.V. catheter in which the needle tip is automatically covered after needle withdrawal to prevent the healthcare worker from making accidental contact with the needle tip. Braun claiming to enjoy patent protection for the said invention in several countries apart from India as well.

The Court laying stress laid on independent claim 28 of Braun's patent describing its inclusions. Braun claimed that they manufactured the product in Malaysia and was marketing the same in India through Braun India under the brand VASOFIX Safety since June, 2004 in India. They claimed to be selling the product in over 45 countries throughout the world.

Braun alleged Poly Medicure Limited to be manufacturing a basic I.V. catheter bearing the brand name "ACCUCATH" for and on behalf of Braun under an exclusive agreement, whereby Poly Medicure Limited was authorized to manufacture I.V. catheters as a contract manufacturer, according to the applicable specifications and regulatory conditions prescribed by Braun India. The agreement had an initial validity period of two years which was to continue for a further period of one year unless terminated earlier. Braun claimed to have been selling two types of I. V. catheters in India

Braun alleged that Poly Medicure Limited having all relevant technical knowledge for manufacture of "ACCUCATH" stated that they had approached Braun with problems faced while manufacturing the same and that Braun solved these problems by going in depth and providing effective solutions. Braun having reposed complete trust in Poly Medicure had supplied them with sensitive data, processes, trade secrets and confidential information. Braun clarified that at no point where they authorized or appointed to be contract manufacturers for the VASOFIX Safety I.V. Catheter, but had entered into a confidentiality /secrecy agreement.

Braun stated that at an international trade show at Germany in November 2006, an official from Poly Medicure showed a product stated to be a prototype of a safety I.V. catheter and that he was not given an opportunity to examine the prototype but was concerned that the same may violate Braun's intellectual property. He requested for a sample of the prototype but the same was not supplied. In the show organized November, 2007, upon visiting the booth, Braun's official was given samples of the safety I.V. cannula. The sample was allegedly dissected by Braun, analyzed and photographed from various angles and, in their opinion, infringed their Indian Patent. According to Braun, Poly Medicure's sample was labeled Safety I.V. Cannula and branded as 'Poly Safety' obtained in November, 2007 contained all the elements of claim 28 of Patent No. 210062. Braun alleged that in view of their pre-existing relationship, Poly Medicure had gained knowledge and now had come out with their own safety I.V. catheter which carries all the elements as set out in claim 28 of the plaintiffs' Patent No. 210062.

The counsel for Braun averred that what was essential in the case was the patent and not its manifestation. He submitted that it was necessary to compare the product of Poly Medicure and Braun's patent to address the infringement and the incorporation of the specific Claim 28. He stated that if the answer is in the affirmative, then a clear case of infringement would be constituted entitling Braun to the injunction. He also submitted that minor additions were immaterial and the essential features, which collectively amount to an invention, must only be taken into consideration.

To substantiate his case, the decision of the Single Judge in Bajaj Auto Limited v. TVS Motor Company Limited: 2008 (36) PTC 417 was also brought to the fore. Herein, the learned Single Judge concluded that while ascertaining as to whether a plaintiff has a prima facie case or not, even though no presumption of the validity of the patent can be drawn, after the 2005 amendment to the Patents Act, a patent obtained by a party was certainly to be given greater significance. The decision was pointed out to show that there is a difference in the rights of patentees after the amendment to the Patents Act, 1970 which came into effect on 20.05.2003. Alongside, the decision of Corruplast Ltd. v. George Harrison (Agencies) Ltd. 1978 RPC 761 was also quoted, wherein it was observed that in every case of this kind, the function of the Court must be to consider which course, either the granting or withholding of an injunction, is the one which is likely to make it easy for the trial court, when the issues in the action have been decided, to adjust the rights of the parties and do justice between them. Further, the decision of the Delhi High Court in J. Mitra & Co. Pvt. Ltd. V. Kesar Medicaments: IA No. 11883/2006 in CS (OS) 2020/2006 was also referred to elucidate the concept of mosaicing, apart from several leading decisions.

The Counsel appearing on behalf of Poly Medicure submitted that the registration of the patent by itself was not sufficient for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. It was also submitted that the registration itself was questionable and that no case was made out for an unfair business practice. The agreement between Braun India and Poly Medicure was referred to point out that as per the clause 10.1, the parties agreed that they shall not compete with each other in respect of the products except those already being manufactured and marketed by Poly Medicure Limited. They contended that the plain omitted this fact. Other pieces of evidence were also supplied to the Court in support of their contentions.

The Counsel for Poly Medicure contending that under dubious circumstances under the patent was obtained by Braun, brought to the fore, a letter from the Chennai Patent Office which stated that the application was found in order for grant, subject to the filling of a pre-grant opposition under S. 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. It was also noted that subsequent to the grant of the patent, an application for the amendment of claims was submitted. He pointed out that this indicated this reflected that there was something more than that met the eye. Further, he pointed out that at the time of application for the patent the same was made in respect of "spring clip safety I.V. catheter". However, in the complete specifications the title was given is "an I.V. catheter" and that the patent had been granted in the same respect. In this pursuance, Poly Medicure averred that:

  1. Braun had suppressed material facts;
  2. The grant of the patent in favour of Braun was colored by fraud;
  3. Injunction could not be granted in favour of Braun particularly when the patent is new and is seriously objected to;
  4. Poly Medicure had already commenced production and sale of their safety I.V. cannula and the same is to the knowledge of Braun and, therefore, no injunction be granted in favour of the plaintiff; and
  5. Mere grant of a patent is not sufficient and, apart from the establishment of prima facie case, the considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable loss have also to be looked into before a Court can grant an injunction in favour of the Braun.

Poly Medicure elaborating upon the plea of suppression submitted that the plaint had been very cleverly drafted and several aspects related to the patent had been misrepresented. Elucidating on these, the plaint was said to lay entire focus and stress of the plaint premised on the ground that the defendants were yet to launch and that there was an imminent threat of sales being commenced whereas, in fact, the defendants had already commenced manufacture and sale of its safety I.V. cannula much prior to the filing of the suit and that too to the knowledge of Braun. It was also averred that the amendments to the claims were not published, while the patent was granted in respect of the amended claims, pertinently Claim 28. He submitted that the post-grant proceedings of making an entirely new claim of a patent in the garb of amendment, was contrary to law, vitiated by fraud, collusion and irregularities and invited a strong prima facie case for revocation under Section 64 (o) of the Patents Act, 1970. He also submitted that issues like the existence of prior art and existing knowledge / anticipation, conditions precedent for grant of patent, had not been adverted to and consequently, the grant of patent was void ab initio.

Revisiting the invention's application, the counsel for Poly Medicure also contended that U.S. Patent No. 5,135,504 indicated all the features of a safety I.V. catheter, which were published, commonly known and applied world over by several manufacturers, apart from the list of prior art which referred to several U.S. and European Patents cited. He also differentiated the catheter manufactured by Poly Medicure from that of Braun's in declining a case for ad interim injunction being present.

In reply to these averments, the counsel for Braun denied the suppression of facts. Stating the ongoing litigation to be a suit for infringement of a patent, Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970 was brought to the fore and the amendment brought to it, in 2003 was said to accord an exclusive right to the patentee to prevent a third party from infringing the said patent. With regard to the amendments in the claim application, it was submitted that the amendment was made only to the claims and not to the specifications, abstract or title. Claims 1-28 has been narrowed down from 1-54, the additional claim and all the amended claims were linked to the earlier claims. Therefore, further publication of the same was not vouched as necessary. As regards the amendment being filed after the grant of the patent, a typographical error was said to have occurred. He furnished the relevant dates and stated that the grant of patent took place on 03.12.2007 and the same was published on 14.12.2007.Further, in view of Section 53 it was said that the term of the patent was from the date of filing and in this position, no object or reason or purpose behind concealing the date of grant existed because the term of the patent dated back from the filling date and not grant date. It was also submitted that a pre-grant amendment did not require publication.

The Court in addressing the contentions raised by both sides took note of several long standing precedents. The Court also noted the fact that the grounds elucidated for revocation under S.64 could also be raised as a defence to infringement under S. 107(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court stated that Poly Medicure's case also needed to be examined without which a decision as to the injunction could not be arrived at. The Court stated that Poly Medicure had already preferred revocation as a counter-claim to the suit for infringement. Further, the question of validity of Braun's Patent No. 210062 was said not free from doubt at this prima facie stage, especially in view of existence of prior art. The Court also noted that a difference between the products of the two parties did exist. Furthermore, the Court also examined that suppression of material facts in the plaint as also the alleged dubious manner in which the patent was granted in favour of Braun could not be ignored.

The Court held that Braun in their contentions had not been able to establish a prima facie case nor the balance of convenience in favour of grant of an ad interim injunction in their favour. However, as adjudicated in the Bilcare Limited case, Poly Medicure was directed to keep accounts of the manufacture and sales of the safety I.V. cannula in question during the pendency of the suit and to make the same available to the Court as and when directed by it.

© Lex Orbis 2009

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.