Ravi Kamal Bali instituted an infringement suit against Kala Tech and Ors seeking an interim injunction preventing the defendant, from making, selling or distributing tamper proof locks/seals as it would be the infringem

Section 104 to 114 of the Indian Patent Act 1970 provide guidelines related to patent infringement. Two kinds of patent infringement are defined - Direct Patent Infringement and Indirect Patent Infringement (Doctrine of Equivalents). Direct Infringement is the most common type which occurs when a product that is close to any patented product or invention is used commercially or marketed without permission from the owner of the patented product or invention. Patent infringement generally falls into two categories - literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. When each element claimed is identical to the allegedly infringing device or process, it is literal infringement. A claim may be infringed under the doctrine of equivalents if it falls under the "triple test", i.e. equivalence holds when the substituted elements perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result. The "All Elements", test says that the doctrine of equivalents must be applied to all the individual elements of the claims and not the claimed invention as a whole. It is necessary to prove that every element of the patented invention, or its substantial equivalent, is present in the accused product or process. The elements of the patented invention must have substantial equivalents in the new invention. This means that they must meet the rules of the triple identity test. Equivalency should only be considered after a claim has been filed. It should not occur when an invention is patented. The doctrine of equivalents is a legal rule in most of the world's patent systems that allows a Court to hold a party liable for patent infringement even though the infringing device or process does not fall within the literal scope of a patent claim, but nevertheless is equivalent to the claimed invention. This "expansion" of claim coverage permitted by the doctrine of equivalents, however, is not unbounded. Instead, the scope of coverage which is afforded the patent owner is limited by (i) the doctrine of "prosecution history estoppel" and (ii) the prior art. An infringement analysis determines whether a claim in a patent literally "reads on" an accused infringer's device or process, or covers the allegedly infringing device under the doctrine of equivalents.