Court finds prima facie infringement of Indian Patent No. IN360726 by Canva’s "Present and Record" feature; directs Rs. 50 lakh security deposit and restrains Canva from offering feature in India pending trial
In a significant ruling on January 28, 2026, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench) dismissed the appeal filed by Canva Pty Ltd challenging an interim injunction granted by a Single Judge. The injunction restrains Canva from offering its "Present and Record" feature in India, finding it prima facie infringes Indian Patent No. IN360726 owned by Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited. The patent relates to a system and method for creating and sharing layered interactive multimedia content.
The dispute arose when Rxprism, an Indian startup, alleged that Canva’s feature enables users to record themselves presenting slides with video overlays and interactive call-to-action (CTA) elements, mirroring the patented technology. Despite Canva’s argument that their product lacks a distinct third or “sandwiched” layer claimed in the patent, the Court held that minor or non-essential differences do not avoid infringement if the core inventive concept is appropriated.
The Court reiterated settled principles of patent law, emphasizing the two-stage test of claim construction followed by claim-to-product comparison. It accepted the Plaintiff’s purposive and holistic construction of the patent claims, identifying seven essential inventive features, of which four were contested by Canva. Upon examining expert evidence and demonstrative materials, the Court found that Canva’s feature incorporates these disputed elements either literally or equivalently, including a layered presentation system and a picture-in-picture (PiP) video overlay.
Importantly, the Court applied the Doctrine of Equivalents, holding that trivial differences such as the movability of the PiP window or the physical existence of a separate CTA layer are immaterial if the same function is performed in substantially the same way to yield the same result. The Court rejected Canva’s plea that the absence of a third layer or differences in CTA configuration interface negate infringement, pointing out that these terms are not expressly part of the patent claims and were introduced late in pleadings.
On the validity challenge, the Court found Canva’s reliance on prior art like Microsoft PowerPoint 2016 and Loom insufficient to defeat the patent at the interlocutory stage, as these prior art references lacked the integrated layered architecture and post-creation configurability claimed by the patent.
The Court also addressed Canva’s contention regarding the PCT application filed by it, clarifying that while the PCT application’s status is irrelevant to infringement, it was rightly used as corroborative evidence to question Canva’s shifting positions.
Considering the balance of convenience and irreparable harm, the Court held that even limited unauthorized use of the infringing feature distorts market expectations and licensing potential. Consequently, the Court upheld the direction for Canva to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs as security for past infringement and imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakhs on Canva for conduct during litigation.
The Division Bench affirmed that appellate interference in interlocutory injunctions is limited to cases of perversity or misapplication of law, finding none here. The judgment clarifies that the observations are confined to the prima facie stage, leaving the final determination of validity and infringement to the trial.
This ruling underscores the Delhi High Court’s rigorous approach in protecting patent rights in the technology sector, particularly in software-related inventions, and reaffirms the applicability of the Doctrine of Equivalents to prevent minor modifications from circumventing patent protection.
Bottom Line:
Interim injunction granted against alleged infringement of Indian Patent on prima facie finding of infringement by the Defendant’s software feature despite absence of a distinct third "sandwiched" layer; proper claim construction and application of Doctrine of Equivalents upheld; deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs as security directed.
Statutory provision(s): Patents Act, 1970 Sections 48, 64; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 39 Rules 1 & 2; Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 13(1)
Canva Pty Ltd v. Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2844894
