The Delhi High Court in its order dated 19th April 2010, has dismissed an interim injunction application in a patent infringement suit filed by Asian Electronics Ltd. v. Havells India Ltd. The invention by Asian Electronics aims at converting fluorescent lighting units, such as tube-lights, from working on an inductive operation mechanism to an electronic operation mechanism without the need for any re-wiring. Asian Electronics inventors discovered that fluorescent lighting units operating on an inductive operation mechanism were 'energy inefficient' as they used to flicker while starting and also discharge invisible gas. However Asian Electronics company claimed that when it bought and dismantled Havells India Ltd company's product, it discovered that almost all the essential features of its patented invention had been literally copied by the Defendant i.e. (i) The Conversion kit (ii) Adaptors on either side of fluorescent lamp (iii) Wiring assembly & (iv) Ballast.

At this Havells India Ltd contended that an infringement analysis proceeds only on a comparison of the claims vis-ŕ-vis the product, however their product was different from that of Asian Electronics and that the prior art such as U.S. Patent No. 4246629 contained all embodiments claimed by the suit patent, thereby rendering the suit patent not only obvious but also anticipated. Havells India Ltd all over again put their defense that the suit patent put forth by Asian Electronics were nothing but mere workshop improvements which are essentially a re-arrangement of known parts and that such workshop improvements could not be construed to be an 'inventive step'. Lastly as put forth by Havells India Ltd, Asian Electronics had not filed any evidence to suggest that it was even working its invention in sufficient quantities thereby ensuring that the balance of convenience was in the favour of Havells India Ltd.

The Court in its decision has given much significance to Section 3(f) and Section 3 (d) of the Patent Act 1970. Section 3(f), which states that, the mere arrangement or re-arrangement or duplication of known devices each functioning independently of one another in a known way is not patentable subject matter. The Judge also made reference to Section 3(d) which states that a mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product will not be considered to a patentable invention.

The Court also found the suit patent to be anticipated by the prior U.S. Patent cited by the Havells India Ltd, since that one document described the entire invention that was being claimed by the suit patent. The Court went ahead and stated that by not filing any documents to show the working of the suit patent, Asian Electronics had failed to even demonstrate that the patent was being worked in the Country. On this count the Court found even the balance of convenience in favour of the Havells India Company and dismissed the application for interim injunction.