Freebit As V. Exotic Mile Private Limited, Cs(Comm) 884/2023

Posted On - 24 January, 2024 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva


  • Plaintiff filed an injunction application against the Defendant in respect of the Plaintiff’s invention titled as ‘Improved Earpiece’ which has been designed by the Plaintiff in ‘C-Shape earphone interface’.
  • Plaintiff also claims that it has several licensees, including Boat, JBL, Skullcandy, Harman etc. who are paying royalties to them for its patent portfolio.
  • The suit patent was filed in India claiming priority from a Norwegian Patent which was granted on 31st October, 2016.


  1. Whether the Plaintiff misrepresented or supressed the material facts?
  2. Whether the validity of the suit patent, on the basis of decisions of corresponding foreign patents being invalidated or refused?

Court’s observation

  1. The Court observed that the Plaintiff has misrepresented the material facts. It was observed that the data was incorrect as the Japanese Patent has been rejected. In several countries the suit patent was invalidated or refused but the Plaintiff misrepresented all this data in the Court.
  2. The Court observed that in the countries which the Plaintiff specified, the suit patent was either revoked, refused, abandoned, or lapsed, but the Plaintiff showed the court that it is either pending or granted.


  • The Court observed that in view of the above facts, clearly, no prima facie case has been established by the Plaintiff, considering that the Defendant has been able to demonstrate that the suit patent, on the strength of which the suit has been initiated is vulnerable to revocation, on account of invalidation as demonstrated by decisions from several jurisdictions across the world. The absence of a prima facie case would be a fundamental barrier to the grant of an interim injunction.
  • According to the Court the balance of convenience is also tilted heavily in favour of the Defendant, especially considering a situation where there are serious assertions regarding the potential revocation of the suit patent, granting an injunction could unduly prejudice the Defendant. This is particularly relevant if the suit patent is later found to be invalid or revoked, as it would mean that the Defendant was unnecessarily restrained from conducting its business activities.


In the present case, it is observed that misrepresenting or suppressing the facts can lead to misleading the judicial system. The status of the patent application whether it is revoked, refused, abandoned, or lapsed should be clearly represented before the court as misrepresentation of this information or data can affect the Court’s willingness to grant equitable relief.