IP Infringement: Delay Doesn't Negate Urgency

❓ Question

IF A COMPANY DISCOVERS ITS PATENTS AND DESIGNS ARE BEING COPIED, BUT IT TAKES A FEW MONTHS TO GATHER EVIDENCE AND FILE A LAWSUIT, CAN A COURT DISMISS THE CASE FOR NOT BEING "URGENT ENOUGH," FORCING THE COMPANY INTO LENGTHY MEDIATION FIRST?

✅ Answer

NO, NOT IF THE INFRINGEMENT IS ONGOING. The Supreme Court has ruled that in cases of continuous intellectual property (IP) theft, the "urgency" is inherent in the nature of the violation itself. A delay in filing the lawsuit does not automatically negate this urgency. The court must recognize that every day the copying continues, the original creator suffers immediate and irreparable harm to its business and reputation.

⚖️ Understanding the Legal Principles

🔹 "Urgent Relief" Assessed from Plaintiff's Standpoint

Court clarified urgency isn't a mechanical count of days but a holistic view
Must evaluate from plaintiff's perspective facing ongoing harm
For continuing wrongs like IP infringement, injury is fresh each day
Protects rights holders from being penalized for investigation time

🔹 Continuing Infringement Creates Inherent Urgency

Each act of manufacturing/selling counterfeit products is a new legal wrong
Harm includes brand damage, customer confusion, market reputation loss
This type of harm is "irreparable" - impossible to fully quantify with money
Public interest in stopping deception adds to urgency

🔹 Delay in Filing Doesn't Kill Urgency for Ongoing Violations

Court corrected lower courts' over-emphasis on time gap
Lapse of time less important than persistence of the peril
Delay irrelevant when infringing activity continues unabated
Question is "Is harmful activity still happening?" not "Why did you wait?"

🔹 Court's Role: Check Plausible Urgency, Not Case Merits

Limited scope of inquiry at preliminary stage
Threshold test, not full trial - only check if request seems legitimate
Should verify urgency isn't "camouflage" to avoid mediation
If plaint shows real ongoing problem, mediation can be bypassed

📜 Key Legal Timeline

2017

Dealership Agreement: Appellant executed agreement with Xero Energy for marketing Novenco ZerAx fans across India

July 2022

Discovery of Infringement: Appellant discovered Xero Energy marketing competing products through newly formed Aeronaut Fans

Dec 2023

Technical Inspection: Appellant's expert inspected infringing fans at client sites, confirmed patent/design violations

June 2024

Lawsuit Filed: Commercial suit filed seeking injunction against continuing infringement

Oct 27, 2025

Supreme Court Ruling: "Delay doesn't negate urgency when infringement is continuing" - restored suit for merits hearing

🧭 Your Action Plan: Protecting Your Intellectual Property

📝 If Your IP Rights Are Being Infringed

✅ Document the "Continuing" Nature of Infringement

Gather dynamic evidence showing ongoing activity - dated receipts, ads, website updates
Maintain clear timeline of your actions and infringer's continuing actions
Keep records demonstrating diligence and uninterrupted nature of harm
Collect technical evidence through expert inspections when needed

✅ Frame Your Lawsuit to Highlight Inherent Urgency

Explicitly state infringement is "continuous" in legal complaint
Plead that each day causes "irreparable harm" to brand goodwill
Annex all evidence showing ongoing nature of violation
Clearly explain how IP theft itself creates urgent situation

✅ Advocate the Correct Legal Test

If challenged on delay, cite this Supreme Court judgment
Explain urgency is inherent for continuing IP infringement
Emphasize court should assess from rights holder's standpoint
Focus on present danger, not when infringement was first discovered

⚖️ Key Legal Provisions to Reference

Legal Provision	What It Means	Application in This Case
Section 12A Commercial Courts Act	Makes pre-litigation mediation mandatory for commercial disputes	Exception applies when suit "contemplates any urgent interim relief"
"Contemplates any urgent interim relief" Exception to Section 12A	Allows direct lawsuit filing without mediation for urgent matters	Continuous IP infringement creates inherent urgency qualifying for exception
Continuing Infringement Legal Doctrine	Legal wrong that repeats over time with each act being fresh violation	Each day of unauthorized IP use constitutes new cause of action
Irreparable Harm Legal Standard	Injury that cannot be adequately compensated by money alone	Brand reputation damage and market confusion qualify as irreparable harm

📘 Key Legal Terms Explained

Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act

A law that generally makes pre-litigation mediation mandatory for commercial disputes before a lawsuit can be filed.

"Contemplates any urgent interim relief"

The exception to Section 12A. If a lawsuit genuinely seeks urgent temporary orders (like injunction), it can bypass mediation.

Continuing Infringement

A legal wrong that repeats over time, like ongoing unauthorized use of patents/trademarks. Each day it continues is a new violation.

Irreparable Harm

A type of injury that cannot be adequately compensated by money alone. Damage to business reputation and brand identity are classic examples.

🚨 What to Avoid When Facing IP Infringement

❌ Don't Assume Delay Automatically Kills Urgency

Don't concede that investigation time eliminates urgency for ongoing violations
Avoid accepting court's mechanical counting of days between discovery and filing
Don't let procedural technicalities override substantive rights protection
Avoid framing your case as historical rather than continuing violation

❌ Don't Neglect Ongoing Evidence Collection

Don't rely only on initial evidence of infringement
Avoid letting documentation of continuing violations lapse
Don't fail to create clear chronology showing persistent harm
Avoid informal communications without proper records

💡 Core Takeaway from the Supreme Court

"In actions alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, urgency must be assessed in the context of the ongoing injury and the public interest in preventing deception. Mere delay in institution of a suit by itself, does not negate urgency when the infringement is continuing."

This judgment ensures that the legal procedure serves the cause of justice, not the other way around. It empowers creators and innovators to protect their rights effectively against dishonest competitors, recognizing that the theft of ideas and brand identity requires swift and decisive action from the courts.

📞 When to Seek Professional Help

👨‍⚖️ IP Lawyer Essential For

Complex IP infringement cases with technical evidence requirements
Responding to court challenges regarding urgency and mediation requirements
Strategic framing of lawsuits to highlight continuing nature of violations
Appeals against incorrect application of procedural requirements
International IP protection and cross-border infringement issues

📝 You Can Handle With Support

Initial documentation of infringement evidence
Basic understanding of IP rights and protection mechanisms
Monitoring ongoing infringement activities
Maintaining chronology of events and communications
Understanding basic legal principles from this judgment

⚠️ DISCLAIMER

This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified legal professional for specific legal guidance. The information provided is based on judicial interpretation and may be subject to changes in law.

🌿 LegalEcoSys Mission

Making Supreme Court judgments accessible and actionable for every Indian citizen navigating legal challenges.

This roadmap decodes a complex commercial procedure judgment to help businesses and innovators understand how to effectively seek urgent legal protection when their intellectual property is under continuous attack.

IP Infringement: Delay Doesn't Negate Urgency for Ongoing Violations