Parties: Novenco Building and Industry A/S vs. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Limited
Advocates: Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe
Judgment By: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar
Diary Number: 1563/2025
Quick Summary: A legal fight between Novenco Building and Industry A/S and Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. over patent infringement has taken a new turn. The Supreme Court of India has allowed Novenco's appeal, emphasizing the urgency in cases of ongoing patent infringement.
On October 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment in a case involving Novenco, a Danish company known for its industrial fans, and Xero Energy, based in Hyderabad. The argument was about Xero Energy allegedly copying Novenco's patented designs and selling similar fans through their partner, Aeronaut Fans Industry Pvt. Ltd.
Novenco claimed that Xero Energy, which had a dealership agreement with them since September 1, 2017, broke this agreement by making and selling similar fans through Aeronaut Fans. Novenco found out about this in July 2022 and took legal action after trying to communicate and sending a formal warning to stop.
"The appellant discovered sometime in July 2022 that Xero Energy started marketing competing products."
The case first went to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. On August 28, 2024, a Single Judge rejected Novenco's request because they didn't follow a rule that requires trying to resolve the issue outside of court first, unless it's an urgent matter. A higher panel of judges agreed with this decision on November 13, 2024.
The Supreme Court, led by Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe, looked into whether Novenco's case really needed urgent temporary help. They decided that the ongoing nature of the infringement justified the urgency, allowing Novenco to skip the mediation requirement.
"The court must look beyond time lag and evaluate the substance of the plea for interim protection."
The judgment clarified that in cases of continuous infringement, urgency is built-in. Delays in filing do not cancel out the need for quick action to prevent ongoing harm to intellectual property and market confusion.
The Supreme Court overturned the previous judgments and sent the case back to the High Court for further review. This decision highlights the importance of dealing with ongoing infringements quickly to protect intellectual rights and public interest.
"The appeal is allowed."
This case shows the tricky balance between following procedures and the need to quickly address ongoing legal wrongs.
