Karnataka HC Lifted Temporary Injunction Against Pine Labs Responding To An Infringement Lawsuit By Innoviti

In a recent development, the Karnataka High Court has lifted a temporary injunction against Pine Labs, which had been imposed by the trial court in response to a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Innoviti over its point-of-sale (POS) terminal technology. The court's decision was based on the fact that the patent in question did not pertain to POS machines, but rather only to the CVS/server. As a result, the plaintiff was unable to prove any instances of infringement. The judge, Justice SR Krishna Kumar, dismissed the plaintiff's argument that the POS device fell under the purview of the patent, deeming it unfounded and rejecting the claim.

The plaintiff had taken their case to the Additional City Civil and Sessions Court and was granted an interim injunction in their favor, leading to the case being moved to the High Court. They claimed that the technology described in their patent involved a new and innovative solution that used unique QR codes for transactions and could be implemented on existing credit or debit card POS terminals to facilitate QR-based cashless payments. They argued that after their patent was granted in 2019, they discovered that the defendants were marketing a new product called "Plutus Smart" that was based on their patented technology.

However, the defendants countered that the plaintiff's invention was neither original nor inventive, especially in light of a similar patent having been granted in the United States and other countries prior to the suit patent.

Justice Kumar examined the materials presented and determined that the plaintiff had no patent or legal protection for the POS machine itself, nor for its functionality or operation. The patent in question only pertained to the server/CVS, which consisted of the processor, its memory, and its operation.

The Court emphasized that for infringement to be established, the plaintiff needed to prove that the defendant's CVS/server was functionally the same as, or substantially similar to, the plaintiff's patented CVS/server. However, the plaintiff was unable to demonstrate this similarity and therefore failed to establish infringement.