The Onus of Claim Mapping: A Serious Task by Bitika Sharma, P.S Manjunathan, and Rajnish Kumar

The Onus of Claim Mapping: A Serious Task by Bitika Sharma, Senior Partner, P.S Manjunathan, Associate and Rajnish Kumar, Associate, of Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP, India.

In The Global IP Magazine Issue 25, Bitika Sharma, Senior Partner, P.S Manjunathan, Associate, and Rajnish Kumar, Associate, at Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP, India, examine the growing importance of claim mapping within India’s evolving patent litigation framework. Drawing comparisons with established practices in the United States and Europe, the authors explore how rigorous element-by-element analysis is becoming fundamental to proving infringement, securing interim relief, and ensuring that patent enforcement is grounded in technical certainty rather than broad allegations.

Why Claim Mapping Matters in Patent Litigation

Claim mapping sits at the heart of patent infringement analysis because patent claims establish the precise boundaries of the protected invention. Unlike trademark disputes, which may focus on consumer perception and likelihood of confusion, patent infringement demands a detailed technical comparison between the asserted claims and the accused product or process.

Each relevant element of a patent claim must therefore be mapped against the allegedly infringing technology. This rigorous approach helps determine whether the accused product falls within the patent’s protected territory and provides courts with a technically grounded basis for assessing infringement.

Lessons from the United States and Europe

The United States has long applied a structured approach to patent infringement, beginning with claim construction before comparing the interpreted claims with the accused product. Pre-filing obligations also require a reasonable factual inquiry, reinforcing the need for patentees to establish a credible technical foundation before bringing an infringement action.

US jurisprudence further applies the “All Elements Rule”, under which infringement requires every claim element, or its equivalent, to be present. European practice similarly places significant emphasis on claim construction and whether all essential elements are found in the allegedly infringing invention, while also accommodating the doctrine of equivalents in appropriate circumstances.

India’s Shift Towards Rigorous Claim Mapping

India’s approach has become considerably more structured as patent disputes have grown increasingly technically complex. A significant development came with the High Court of Delhi Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022, which require infringement plaintiffs to provide a precise claims-versus-product or process chart to the extent possible.

This requirement has elevated claim mapping from a useful litigation practice into a formal procedural obligation. Plaintiffs must now substantiate their infringement case from the outset rather than relying on broad allegations and developing the technical evidence at a later stage.

The framework also provides courts with a clearer evidentiary foundation when considering whether a prima facie case exists and whether interim relief should be granted. Judicial Scrutiny Raises the Evidentiary Bar

Recent decisions from the Delhi High Court demonstrate the increasingly granular scrutiny being applied to claim mapping.

In Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd. v. Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd., the Court reinforced that where essential claim features are absent or substantially different in the accused product, a prima facie infringement case cannot be established.

The Division Bench decision in Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. v. E. R. Squibb and Sons LLC further emphasised that regulatory biosimilarity cannot itself establish patent infringement. Instead, infringement requires product-to-claim mapping, reinforcing the distinction between regulatory similarity and the technical scope of patent rights. Claim Mapping When the Product Is Not Yet Available

The evidentiary challenge becomes particularly significant in quia timet actions, where a patentee seeks relief before an allegedly infringing product has entered the market.

The absence of a physical product does not eliminate the requirement for rigorous mapping. Instead, patentees may need to rely on strong circumstantial or inferential evidence, including regulatory filings, technical specifications, patent documents, laboratory data, product brochures, manufacturing information, public technical disclosures, or other materials capable of establishing the characteristics of the anticipated product or process.

The key principle remains the same: assumptions cannot replace a technically supported, element-by-element comparison.

A More Mature Patent Enforcement Framework

India’s evolving claim-mapping requirements have important consequences for both patentees and defendants. Patent owners now face a greater pre-filing evidentiary burden, requiring stronger technical preparation before commencing proceedings.

At the same time, defendants have greater scope to challenge incomplete or inaccurate mappings when resisting interim injunctions. For courts, detailed claim charts can provide greater clarity at an early stage, supporting more efficient assessment of technically complex infringement disputes.

The result is a patent enforcement framework increasingly centred on evidence, precision, and the substantive strength of the infringement case from the outset.

Conclusion

India’s shift towards structured claim mapping is strengthening the technical foundations of patent enforcement. By requiring precise evidence from the outset, the framework enables clearer judicial assessment while protecting both innovation and the public interest.

Read the full article in The Global IP Magazine Issue 25, essential reading for patent practitioners, rightsholders, and businesses navigating infringement litigation and patent enforcement in India.

READ THE ARTICLE NOW!