No mandatory pre-institution mediation where urgent relief is sought: Supreme Court

Background

The appellant, Novenco Building and Industry A/S, initiated a patent and design infringement suit before the Delhi High Court, alleging that the respondents were unlawfully manufacturing and selling products that violated its registered intellectual property rights. Along with the suit, the appellant sought urgent interim injunctions to restrain ongoing infringement. The High Court, however, declined to entertain the interim relief application and directed the appellant to first undergo pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, observing that the “urgent interim relief” exception was not attracted. Aggrieved by this approach, Novenco preferred a statutory appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, which also dismissed the appeal reiterating that mediation was mandatory. The matter was thereafter carried to the Supreme Court, leading to a final determination on the scope of urgency in IP disputes vis-à-vis Section 12A.

Issue Before the Court

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether a plaintiff seeking urgent interim relief in a patent and design infringement suit is required to mandatorily undergo pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Findings of the Court

The Supreme Court clarified that Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act requires compulsory pre-institution mediation only in cases where no urgent interim relief is sought. In matters involving ongoing infringement of patents or designs, urgency is inherent because every act of infringement results in fresh and continuing loss to the rights holder. The Court held that mere delay in filing the suit does not diminish the seriousness of infringement or legalise the violative conduct. Urgency must be determined from the plaintiff’s perspective at the time of filing and not by applying hindsight. On this basis, the Court ruled that the suit was wrongly rejected for lack of mediation and restored it for consideration on merits, including the request for interim injunction.

Principle Laid Down

The judgment lays down clear guidance on how Section 12A should operate in the context of intellectual property enforcement. The Supreme Court held that when infringement is ongoing and the plaintiff seeks immediate injunctive relief, the requirement of pre-institution mediation does not apply. In determining urgency, courts must assess the position of the plaintiff at the time of filing and whether continued infringement risks irreparable harm.

In essence, Section 12A mediation is not required where:

1. There is a continuing or recurring infringement causing fresh cause of action.

2. The plaintiff has sought bona fide urgent interim relief to prevent further harm.

3. Delay in approaching the court does not alter the existence or seriousness of infringement.

4. Public interest considerations, such as preventing consumer confusion or deception, are involved.

Conclusion

This ruling marks an important reaffirmation of the need for swift judicial protection in intellectual property disputes. By clarifying that compulsory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A does not apply where urgent interim relief is genuinely required, the Supreme Court has ensured that rights holders are not deprived of timely remedies merely due to procedural technicalities. The decision prioritizes substance over form, recognizing that ongoing infringement can cause significant commercial loss and irreversible market impact if not immediately addressed. Going forward, plaintiffs must clearly demonstrate the urgency and bona fide nature of their interim relief requests, while courts are expected to evaluate such urgency from the plaintiff’s vantage point and not through hindsight. This judgment ultimately strengthens the enforcement framework by maintaining a balance between procedural efficiency and the effective protection of intellectual property rights.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this document is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal opinion, advice or recommendation.

Case Citation: Novenco Building and Industry A/S vs. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd. and Ors. (27.10.2025 - SC): 2025 INSC 1256; MANU/SC/1449/2025