Minor Variations Cannot Camouflage Patent Infringement: Delhi High Court Rejects Canva’s Appeal in Interactive Content Technology Suit

"Mere Non-Existence of a Sandwich Layer Would Not Obviate Infringement", In a precedent-reinforcing judgment delivered on January 28, 2026, the Delhi High Court refused to interfere with the interim injunction passed against global design platform Canva, holding that its “Present and Record” feature prima facie infringes Indian Patent No. IN 360726, belonging to RxPrism Health Systems Private Limited.

Division Bench, comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, held that the challenge raised by Canva in appeal failed to demonstrate any "perversity, arbitrariness, or legal infirmity" in the decision of the learned Single Judge.

Reinforcing the principle that functional imitation under cosmetic disguise still amounts to infringement, the Court underlined that "trivial or minor differences between the patented invention and the Defendant’s product would not permit the Defendant to escape the infringement."

“Patent Claims Define Monopoly – Not Descriptive Language or Commercial Labels”: Court Declines to Read ‘Third Layer’ Into Patent

Rejecting Canva’s core argument that its feature lacks a distinct “third layer” or “sandwiched layer” that forms the supposed backbone of RxPrism’s patent, the Court observed that “Expressions such as ‘third layer’ or ‘sandwiched layer’ do not appear in the claims or the specification” and therefore cannot be introduced artificially at the appellate stage.

The Court noted that even Canva’s own expert admitted in his report that the “implementation of three layers is not part of the claim or even the specification.” The Bench concluded that the architecture claimed in the patent involves a background first media, a foreground second media (such as a video overlay), and a configuration interface for interactive content, and these were demonstrably present in Canva’s product.

“Absence of Movability in PiP Window Does Not Negate Infringement”: Court Clarifies Scope of Essential Elements in Software Patents

Addressing another key objection raised by Canva—regarding the alleged non-movability of its Picture-in-Picture (PiP) window, the Court clarified that the essential claim requirement was the existence of a foreground second media, not the movability per se.

“In any event, the settled law on the test for infringement… is that the trivial or minor differences… would not permit the Defendant to escape the infringement,” the Court reaffirmed.

The Bench rejected the contention that PiP movability, even if described in the specification, was an “essential claim limitation.” Movability, the Court ruled, was at best a browser-dependent function, not a product-level architectural distinction.

“Function-Way-Result Test Still Satisfied Even If CTA Visible During Authoring” – Functional Identity Matters, Not Visual Timing

Canva further argued that in RxPrism’s patent, the Call-to-Action (CTA) elements are visible only during playback, whereas in Canva’s feature, they appear even at the authoring stage. The Court dismissed this claim as legally untenable, highlighting that the patent claims nowhere mandate invisibility during authoring.

Even Canva’s expert conceded that the claim language did not impose any such visibility restriction.

“What matters is the function, the way it is implemented, and the result achieved – not the visual sequencing or cosmetic staging,” the Court observed, applying the Doctrine of Equivalents.

“Infringement Is Not Avoided By Renaming Configuration Interface As ‘Formatting Tool’”: Label Doesn’t Change Legal Character

The Bench emphasized that Canva’s interface to create and insert CTAs—whether labeled a “formatting option” or otherwise—functionally performs the same role as the configuration interface described in RxPrism’s patent.

“The Defendant’s product performs the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result,” the Court held, affirming that Claim C6 of the suit patent stood prima facie satisfied.

“PCT Filing Cannot Determine Infringement But May Reveal Inconsistencies in Defendant’s Case”: Court Clarifies Use of Foreign Filings

While Canva objected to the learned Single Judge’s reference to its PCT application, the Division Bench clarified that such documents are not decisive, but may still be used as relevant corroborative material to assess technical admissions or strategic shifts.

“Infringement must always be tested by comparing the claims of the patent with the allegedly infringing product,” the Court reminded. However, the Defendant’s ‘complete somersault’ in abandoning the PCT application after it was cited by RxPrism was noted as a red flag warranting closer scrutiny.

“Canva Cannot Escape Liability by Highlighting Minor Technical Deviations”: Doctrine of Equivalents Applied with Full Force

The Court reiterated the function-way-result analysis laid down in FMC Corporation v. Natco Pharma Ltd. and Sotefin SA v. Indraprastha Cancer Society, rejecting Canva’s attempt to narrowly interpret infringement based solely on structural labels or descriptive deviations.

“The functionality of the Defendant’s product, which has been demonstrated to the Court, clearly falls within the claims of the suit patent,” the Division Bench observed. It cautioned against overemphasis on cosmetic differences and reinforced that “once the essential inventive features are adopted, infringement is made out.”

“Rs. 50 Lakhs Security Deposit Not Disproportionate”: Court Upholds Injunction, Finds No Perversity in Trial Court's Discretion

Affirming the direction to deposit ₹50 lakhs as security for past infringement, the Court emphasized that the Defendant had no attachable assets in India, and the direction was “a protective and provisional measure” based on affidavits disclosing usage of the feature in India.

“The learned Single Judge’s direction reflects a reasoned exercise of discretion. This Court is not persuaded to re-appreciate the evidence or re-examine the issues as if sitting in appeal on facts,” the Bench held, applying the Wander Ltd. v. Antox India test for appellate restraint in interim injunctions.

“Infringement Must Be Assessed By Claim Mapping, Not By Comparing Commercial Labels”: Final Word from the Court

Summing up, the Court noted:

“We are satisfied that the process of claim construction and comparison was undertaken in accordance with settled principles of patent law, and the impugned judgment cannot be faulted on this ground.”

The appeal stood dismissed in its entirety, with the clarification that all observations are prima facie and will not prejudice the outcome at trial.

Date of Decision: January 28, 2026