Karnataka High Court vacates interim injunction against Pine Labs as void in Innoviti patent infringement suit

Karnataka High Court vacates interim injunction against Pine Labs as void in Innoviti patent infringement suit

Rules that the plaintiff failed to establish the defendant’s CVS/server was functionally identical in substance

The Karnataka High Court has vacated an interim injunction by the trial court against Pine Labs in a patent infringement suit filed by Innoviti Payment Solutions related to its Point-Of-Sale (POS) terminal technology.

The bench of Justice SR Krishna Kumar passed the order on the ground that the suit patent did not cover POS machines and was restricted only to the CVS/server. The plaintiff had failed to establish any act of infringement.

The Judge stated, "In the absence of any material to either establish that the CVS of the defendant or its functionality or working is identical or similar to the CVS/server of the plaintiff, I am of the view that the plaintiff has not been successful in establishing that the defendant has committed any act of infringement of the suit patent.”

He further ruled, "As stated supra, this contention/allegation of the plaintiff is clearly false, since the plaintiff does not have any patent over the POS machine, irrespective of its functionality or the CVS covered under the suit patent."

Earlier, the plaintiff had moved the Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, wherein an interim injunction was granted in its favour and the suit was transferred to the high court.

The plaintiff had maintained that the technology claimed in the suit patent related to a novel and innovative transaction-specific unique QR code-based solution. It could be used on existing credit or debit card POS terminals to enable UPI and other QR-based cashless payments.

It further claimed that after the patent was granted in its favour in 2019, the plaintiff learned that the defendant was marketing a new product, ‘Plutus Smart’ based on their patented technology.

However, the defendant argued the plaintiff’s invention was neither novel nor inventive. Prior to the suit patent, a similar patent was granted in the US and other countries.

Justice Kumar found that the plaintiff had no patent or legal protection over the POS machine, its functionality, or its working. It was related to the server/CVS comprising the processor, its memory, functionality and working.

The bench underscored that to establish infringement, the plaintiff had to establish that the defendant’s CVS/server was functionally identical or similar in substance to the plaintiff’s suit patent. But it had failed to demonstrate the same.

While Senior Advocate KG Raghavan along with Advocate Saurab Anand appeared for the plaintiff, the defendant was represented by Senior Advocate Uday Holla along with Advocate Maneesha Kongovi and Essenese Obhan of Obhan & Associates.