Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Patent Injunction Against Canva Over “Present And Record” Feature

The Court was hearing an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act against an order granting an interim injunction in a patent infringement suit.

A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, while stating that the appeal “arises from an interlocutory order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, whereby the learned Single Judge exercised discretionary jurisdiction in granting/refusing interim relief”, observed that “appellate interference with such discretionary orders is limited and circumscribed”.

The Bench, upon a careful examination of the material placed on record, further held: “we are unable to accept the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the Defendant that the impugned judgment suffers from absence of proper claim construction in terms of the principles laid down in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (supra), or that the injunction was granted merely on the basis of claim-to-claim mapping or overall identity.”

Background

The appeal arose from an order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a commercial suit alleging infringement of a patent. The Single Judge had restrained Canva from making available its “Present and Record” feature in India and directed the deposit of security and costs in favour of the patent holder.

The appellants challenged the grant of an interim injunction on grounds including alleged misapplication of claim construction principles, absence of essential claim elements, and serious challenges to patent validity.

The plaintiff claimed ownership of Indian Patent No. IN 360726 titled “A system and a method for creating and sharing interactive content rapidly anywhere and anytime.” The plaintiff asserted that it had commercially deployed the patented invention through its product and that Canva’s “Present and Record” feature embodied the essential technical features of the patented system.

It was alleged that Canva’s feature enabled recording of a presenter over slides with interactive elements and generated a composite presentation, thereby infringing the suit patent. The plaintiff instituted a commercial suit seeking a permanent and mandatory injunction along with interim relief restraining the use of the impugned feature.

The Single Judge, after examining claim construction, expert material, and demonstrative evidence, granted an interim injunction restraining use of the feature in India, directed the deposit of security, and awarded costs.

Aggrieved, Canva preferred the present appeal.

Court’s Observation

The Division Bench first reiterated the limited scope of appellate interference with discretionary orders granting interim injunctions, citing settled principles that such interference is permissible only where discretion is exercised arbitrarily, perversely, or in disregard of settled law.

The Court examined the legal framework governing patent infringement analysis, including the two-stage process of claim construction and comparison of properly construed claims with the allegedly infringing product.

The Bench noted that claim construction is a matter of law and must be carried out objectively based on the claim language, read purposively in light of the specification and the understanding of a person skilled in the art. The Court observed that the learned Single Judge had undertaken a purposive construction of the claims and identified the essential technical features of the patented invention, including layered media architecture and post-creation configurability of interactive elements.

On the issue of infringement, the Bench held that the Single Judge had conducted a detailed functional comparison between the patented claims and Canva’s feature and recorded a prima facie finding that the essential elements were present. The Court rejected the contention that the absence of a so-called “third layer” or “sandwiched layer” defeated infringement, noting that such expressions did not form part of the claims and that infringement analysis must be based on the claims as construed.

The Bench also examined the application of the Doctrine of Equivalents and noted that minor or insubstantial variations cannot enable an alleged infringer to escape liability where the core inventive concept has been appropriated. On the validity challenge, the Court held that while the defendants had raised arguable challenges based on prior art and statutory grounds, such challenges were not so strong or compelling as to defeat interim protection at this stage.

The Court further held that the learned Single Judge had correctly applied the triple test of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. It was noted that continued use of the impugned feature could distort the market, erode licensing potential, and impair the patentee’s competitive advantage, justifying interim protection. The Bench also upheld the direction to deposit security and the award of costs, noting that the Single Judge had exercised discretion after considering the circumstances and conduct of the parties.

The Court concluded that the impugned order reflected a reasoned and lawful exercise of discretion and that no ground for appellate interference was made out.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the interim injunction restraining Canva from making available the “Present and Record” feature in India.

The Court affirmed the findings of prima facie infringement, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm recorded by the learned Single Judge.

The directions regarding the deposit of security and award of costs were also sustained.

Cause Title: Canva Pty Ltd & Ors. v. RxPrism Health Systems Private Limited & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:659-DB)

Appearances

Appellants: Saikrishna Rajagopal, Advocate Sneha Jain, Advocate Victor Vaibhav Tandon, Advocate Shruti Jain, Advocate Ayush Saxena, Advocate

Respondents: Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate Kriti Ranjan, Advocate Vishal, Advocate Ritik Raghuvanshi, Advocate Abhishek Ranjan, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment