News Date :
Karnatak: The Karnataka High Court recently vacated an interim temporary injunction against Pine Labs by the trial court in a patent infringement suit filed by Innoviti regarding its point-of-sale (POS) terminal technology [Innoviti Payment Solutions v Pine Labs].
The order was passed by Justice SR Krishna Kumar on the ground that the suit patent did not include or cover POS machines, and was restricted only to the CVS/server. Therefore, the plaintiff had failed to establish any act of infringement.
“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 of the plaintiff,” the order said.
The single-judge said that the plaintiff’s claim that the POS device is covered under the suit patent was clearly false and ought to be rejected.
“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.”
The plaintiff had earlier moved the Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, wherein an interim injunction was granted in their favour and the suit was transferred to the High Court.
According to the plaintiff, the technology claimed in the suit patent related to a novel and innovative transaction specific unique QR code based solution that could be used on existing credit or debit card POS terminals to enable UPI and other QR based cashless payments.
It was claimed that after the patent was granted in their favour in 2019, the plaintiffs learnt that the defendants were marketing a new product, “Plutus Smart” based on their patented technology.
However, according to the defendants, the invention of the plaintiffs was neither novel nor inventive, particularly in view of a similar patent having been granted in the United States of America and other countries prior to the suit patent.
On going through the material, Justice Kumar found that the plaintiff does not have any patent or legal protection over the POS machine, its functionality or working and the suit patent was only in relation to the server/CVS comprising of the processor, its memory and its functionality and working.
The Court underscored that in order to establish infringement, the plaintiff had to to establish that the defendant’s CVS/server was functionally identical or similar in substance to the plaintiff’s suit patent comprising of the CVS/server, which it had failed to demonstrate.
“In the absence of any legal or acceptable material placed by the plaintiff in this regard, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to establish infringement of the suit patent by the defendant,” the court held.
Senior Advocate KG Raghavan along with Advocate Saurab Anand appeared for the plaintiff.
Senior Advocate Uday Holla along with Advocate Maneesha Kongovi and Essenese Obhan of Obhan & Associates represented the defendant.
