Supreme Court Judgment: Urgent IP Infringement Cases Bypass Section 12A Mediation Mandate

Case Summary: Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2025 INSC 1256)

Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar & Alok Aradhe
Date of Judgment: October 27, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 1256
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India – Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court ruled that suits involving continuing infringement of intellectual property rights inherently contemplate urgent interim relief, and thus are exempt from the mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The case arose after Novenco Building and Industry A/S, a Danish manufacturer of patented industrial fans, filed a commercial suit against its former Indian distributor Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Aeronaut Fans Industry Pvt. Ltd. for alleged patent and design infringement.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court had earlier rejected Novenco’s plaint for non-compliance with Section 12A, holding that there was no genuine urgency since the company delayed filing the suit.

However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that urgency must be assessed based on ongoing harm rather than the mere passage of time between discovery of infringement and filing of suit.

⚖️ Key Takeaways from the Judgment

1. Section 12A’s Mediation Requirement Not Absolute:
   • Pre-institution mediation is mandatory only if no urgent interim relief is contemplated.
   • IP infringement cases with continuing violations qualify as urgent by nature.
2. Continuing Infringement = Continuing Urgency:
   • Each act of sale or manufacture of infringing goods constitutes a fresh cause of action.
   • Delay in filing suit does not negate urgency when infringement persists.
3. Courts Must Examine Urgency from Plaintiff’s Standpoint:
   • The test is not whether interim relief will be granted, but whether it was reasonably contemplated.
   • Courts must look at the plaint, supporting documents, and the nature of harm alleged.
4. Public Interest Adds Weight to Urgency:
   • Protecting consumers from deception and ensuring market integrity gives IP disputes a public dimension, reinforcing the need for immediate relief.
5. High Court’s Error Corrected:
   • The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by focusing on the lapse of time rather than the ongoing infringement and its effects.
   • The plaint was restored to the High Court for adjudication on merits.

🏛️ Final Outcome

• High Court’s rejection of plaint set aside.
• Novenco’s commercial suit restored for trial on merits.
• Supreme Court reaffirmed that IP right holders should not be left remediless due to procedural formalities.