Delhi High Court Denies Toyota’s Plea in Patent Case Against Indian Firm LMW

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court refused to grant an interim injunction to Japanese company Toyota in a patent infringement case against Indian firm LMW Limited. The order, passed on July 1, 2025, by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, stated clearly that Toyota's patent had already expired on May 24, 2025, making any restraining order meaningless.

What Was the Case About?

Toyota, through its company Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki, had filed a request asking the court to stop LMW from using a technology found in spinning machines that produce yarn. This invention involves a fibre bundle concentrating apparatus used in spinning frames.

Toyota claimed that LMW was using its patented technology in their "Spinpact" machines and that this was a clear case of patent infringement. The Japanese company had applied for an interim injunction under Indian civil procedure rules to stop LMW from using this technology while the court dealt with the larger case.

LMW’s Side of the Story:

LMW, on the other hand, said that it had not copied Toyota’s invention. Instead, it argued that it had developed the technology on its own with help from a German company. It also claimed that the patent in question wasn’t new or innovative, and the idea had already been known in the public domain—what is known in patent law as “prior art.”

The Court's Decision:

While the court acknowledged that Toyota might have a prima facie case (which means it appeared to have some merit), and could suffer irreparable harm, it ultimately ruled that none of that mattered anymore—because the patent had expired. Once a patent expires, the invention becomes public property and anyone can use it freely.

Justice Banerjee said:

“Since the patent has already expired on 24.05.2025, this Court is precluded from passing any effective order restraining infringement of the said patent.”

In simpler terms, the judge said it would be useless to block LMW now, since the legal protection for the invention no longer exists.

What Happens Next?

Even though the court refused the injunction, it did ask LMW to submit financial details related to its use of the invention—from the time it started using it up to the patent's expiry date. These details must be submitted in a sealed cover, meaning they will not be open to the public unless the court allows it.

This could still affect how much compensation (if any) Toyota might receive, depending on the final outcome of the case.

Who Represented the Parties?

• Toyota was represented by Senior Advocate Chander M Lall, with legal support from Anand and Anand, a well-known law firm.

• LMW was represented by Senior Advocate Gaurav Pachnanda, supported by the legal team from Remfry and Sagar.

  
  

Conclusion:

This ruling highlights a key fact in patent law: once a patent expires, legal protections end, no matter how strong your case might have been. It also shows how courts carefully balance legal rights with timing and practicality.