Case Study: AI Reconstruction of Patent–Product Mapping for Spinpact
- Sep 7
- 14 min read
Updated: Sep 10
This report provides an AI-led technical reconstruction of Indian Patent IN244759, focusing on claim coverage, product architecture, and teardown analysis of the accused device (LMW's Spinpact). It is an alternative for legal abstraction with engineering alignment and claim-to-feature charting for actionable IP intelligence. This exercise pre-empts the legal outcome through reconstructing IP Valuation through the Patent strength and product breakdown without any financial impact in knowledge.
Disclaimer: The Patents and Applicant are used solely for educational purposes to illustrate an IP Valuation as a legal case study. The subject matter relates to an ongoing civil dispute — Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki vs. LMW Limited (CS(COMM) 881/2024) — currently under adjudication before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.As of the date of publication, the matter remains sub judice. The Hon’ble Court has accepted the plaintiff’s delayed written statement in response to the defendant’s counter-claim and has scheduled the next procedural hearing for admission-denial and marking of exhibits on 12.09.2025. No final judgment on liability, damages, or patent validity has yet been delivered.This content does not reflect any judicial findings and must not be construed as legal advice, evidence, or a prediction of outcome. All technical analyses, valuations, and interpretations herein are illustrative and based on publicly available sources and filings. Patenti did not participate in this litigation. The purpose is to demonstrate how such an outcome could have been predicted or automated using Patenti's valuation engine.
Case Context
Plaintiff: Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki (Japan-based textile machinery giant)
Defendant: LMW Limited (Indian manufacturer of textile spinning machines, including Spinpact)
Patents in Question:
IN244759: Fiber Bundle Concentrating Apparatus in Spinning Machine
IN3948834: Suction Duct for Spinning Machine
Key Judicial Observations
Scope of Adjudication: Only IN244759(per Court Findings July 1, 2025)
The plaintiff alleged direct patent infringement of both patents by LMW's Spinpact.
During proceedings, the plaintiff restricted the injunction application to IN244759, since LMW stated it had stopped using the alleged technology from IN3948834.
The court acknowledged a strong prima facie case of infringement for IN244759 based on:
Groove depth ≥ 0.04 mm on rollers (Spinpact measured at 0.15 mm by Carl Zeiss)
Functional architecture overlap
However, since IN244759 expired on 24 May 2025, no injunction could be granted.
🧾 “Upon expiry… the patent is freely available in public domain. Everyone including the defendant is free to use… the plaintiff has lost its right to enforce the said IN759 after expiry.”— Delhi High Court Verdict, para 41Verdict
Outcome: No injunction; defendant ordered to disclose product data under seal. Implication: Valid patent-to-product mapping remains central to damages & commercial impact.
Patent Overview: IN244759
Title: Fiber Bundle Concentrating Apparatus in Spinning Machine Applicant: Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki Priority Date: May 28, 2004 Grant Date: December 20, 2010 Expiry: May 24, 2025 Core Innovation: Use of nip rollers with grooves ≥ 0.04 mm to prevent cotton fly accumulation between the roller and the suction unit, thus enhancing fiber concentration efficiency and reducing machine downtime.
Independent Claim Extract
Claim 1 (Paraphrased):A fiber concentrating system including:
A feed unit with nip rollers downstream of drafting rollers
A suction system with perforated belts and suction holes, and
A structural feature: nip rollers with grooves ≥ 0.04 mm, oriented to intersect the roller circumference and aligned with belt width.
Inventive Focus: The dimensional specification and placement of the groove resolve a specific problem—cotton fly buildup at the interface between suction pipe and roller.
Patent #1: IN244759 — Fiber Bundle Concentrating Apparatus
Core Feature: Nip roller with grooves ≥ 0.04 mm depth to reduce cotton fly accumulation.
Inventive Structure: Suction pipe + curved guide surface + sliding perforated belt + grooved nip roller.
Objective: Solve the problem of fiber fuzzing and downtime due to manual cleaning.
Patent #2: IN3948834 — Suction Duct for Spinning Machine
Core Feature: Modular duct segments joined using an elastic tapered seal that fits between flared + linear surfaces, ensuring:
Airflow sealing under negative pressure
Locking of longitudinal displacement without bonding
Problem Solved: Prevent leakage and shifting of duct members during suction in spinning frames.
Patenti Engine Output
AI Architecture Used in Product-Patent Mapping:
The illustration below outlines a simplified representation of how Patenti’s AI Engine processes and maps real-world product features to patent claims — without revealing proprietary algorithms or implementation specifics.
At its core, Patenti combines textual, structural, and visual interpretation of both product documentation and patent filings.
This engine is architected to be domain-adaptive, allowing support across industries like semiconductors, wireless standards, medical devices, and mechanical systems.
Let us start our analysis with technical breakdown using the AI engine.
Technical Breakdown: IN244759 – Fiber Bundle Concentrating Apparatus
Claim Feature | Spinpact Evidence | AI Confidence |
Suction part with curved guiding surface | Suction nozzle with perforated belt, curved slot | High |
Perforated belt slides along guiding surface | Positive-driven apron with extended slot width | High |
Nip roller downstream of drafting system | Knurled compact roller in Spinpact layout | High |
Groove ≥ 0.04 mm intersecting circumferential direction | Carl Zeiss Report: 0.15 mm groove depth | Very High |
Multiple grooves at constant pitch (gear cutting) | Present; implied in production gear drawings | Medium–High |
AI Reasoning: All structural and dimensional elements of Claim 1 of IN244759 are materially implemented. The groove design matches precisely, solving the same problem: accumulation of cotton fly. The roller–belt–suction interaction zone is architecturally indistinguishable from the patent claim.
Technical Breakdown: IN3948834 – Suction Duct for Spinning Machine
Claim Feature | Spinpact Evidence | AI Confidence |
Modular duct units with first and second ends | Spinpact’s suction system uses tubular sections | High |
Flared inner surface + linear outer surface at joint | Shown in product teardown prior to technology update | Medium–High |
Elastic sealing member between duct segments | Disclosed by plaintiff; admitted by LMW as replaced | Medium |
Tapered seal inserted in airflow direction | Matches the sealing design in Japanese grant JP6558194 | High |
Reinforcing & step features in sealing profile | Present in prior CAD schematics (now discontinued) | Moderate |
AI Reasoning: Although not contested in current litigation, the older version of Spinpact featured a modular duct design that maps structurally to IN3948834. The sealing mechanism included tapering and reinforcement consistent with claim language. Its discontinuation aligns with legal strategy but does not negate historical implementation.
Product Architecture Summary: Spinpact (LMW)
System Module | Mapped Patent | Key Feature | Patent Match |
Compact Nip Roller Unit | IN244759 | Roller with ≥ 0.04 mm groove to reduce cotton fly | Full match |
Suction Apron System | IN244759 | Perforated apron sliding over suction guide | Full match |
Modular Duct Assembly | IN3948834 | Ducts joined using elastic tapered seals | 🟡 Previously used |
Tapered Sealing Insert | IN3948834 | Taper aligned with airflow; rigidity and locking function | 🟡 Previously used |
Patent–Product Claim Chart
Patent | Claim Block | Spinpact Feature | Status |
IN244759 | Groove ≥ 0.04 mm in nip roller | 0.15 mm grooves (Zeiss report) | Infringed |
IN244759 | Curved suction guide, belt interaction | Shown in design & videos | Infringed |
IN3948834 | Modular suction duct + tapered seal | Admitted legacy implementation | 🟡 Historical use |
Scoping the analysis now to IN244759 as in the injunction
Comparative Architecture: Spinpact vs. IN244759
Functional Block | IN244759 Patent | Spinpact Product (LMW) | Inference |
Drafting Unit | Draft part with final feed rollers | Yes (standard in spinning frames) | Match |
Nip Rollers | Bottom nip rollers (20a) downstream of feed rollers | Present in Spinpact (verified via Carl Zeiss report) | Match |
Perforated Belt Mechanism | Belt wound over suction pipe and roller, in sliding contact | Present (standard configuration) | Match |
Groove on Nip Roller | ≥ 0.04 mm depth, intersects circumference, extends across belt | Spinpact grooves = 0.15 mm (measured by plaintiff + Zeiss) | Match |
Anti-fly Mechanism | Grooves reduce turbulence/catch cotton fly | Functionally similar observed via groove design | Match |
AI-Assisted Claim Chart
Patent Claim Element | Spinpact Corresponding Feature | AI Similarity Score | Coverage Confidence |
A pair of nip rollers downstream of drafting rollers | Knurled rollers in Spinpact | 0.94 | High |
Perforated belt sliding against suction part | Belt-guided suction chamber | 0.89 | High |
Groove on nip roller intersecting circumferential direction | Measured groove: 0.15 mm, aligned across belt | 0.98 | Very High |
Groove depth ≥ 0.04 mm | Groove depth measured at 0.15 mm | 1.00 | Absolute |
Curved surface suction pipe extending around nip roller | Matching configuration (via internal schematics) | 0.91 | High |
Product Breakdown
Spinpact— A spinning machine developed and marketed by LMW Limited (Lakshmi Machine Works).
Key Characteristics of Spinpact (as referenced in the case files):
Category: Ring spinning frame
Target Function: Drafting and concentrating fiber bundles (like cotton) into yarn
Technological Relevance: Incorporates advanced drafting systems, nip rollers, suction-based fiber concentration, and modular duct segments
Breakdown Insights
Module | Patent Implication | Technical Note |
Grooved Rollers | IN244759 | Groove >0.04 mm depth is a central infringing feature |
Suction Duct & Seal | IN3948834 | Modular suction system with tapered seals aligns with formerly used design |
Suction Nozzle & Apron | Both patents | Integrates airflow sealing and fiber condenser architectures |
Drive & Duct Architecture | IN3948834 | Efficient airflow path design reduces leakage and improves energy/performance |
Supporting Evidence:
Carl Zeiss India Pvt. Ltd. metrology report measured groove depth at 0.15 mm, exceeding the patent threshold of 0.04 mm.
Plaintiff submitted Spinpact knurled roller samples and conducted internal SME comparison.
Defendant admitted discontinuing the IN3948834-equivalent suction duct design, replacing it with alternate technology — but no such admission was made regarding IN244759, making it central to the infringement analysis.
Thus, Spinpact incorporates:
IN244759-compliant grooved rollers and suction interfaces for fiber condensation.
IN3948834-style modular suction duct design (previous version, later altered per court records).
A comprehensive, modular architecture blending suction, drive, and airflow regulation that embodies the technical spirit of both patents.
These substantiated feature maps anchor the AI-powered teardown—claim coverage, architecture reconstruction, and SME inference.
Full Product Architecture Mapping: LMW's Spinpact Machine
Component | Mapped Patent | Claimed Feature | Spinpact Correspondence | AI Confidence |
Drafting rollers | IN244759 | Upstream drafting part | Yes | High |
Nip rollers | IN244759 | With grooves ≥ 0.04 mm | Grooves measured at 0.15 mm (Zeiss Report) | Very High |
Perforated belt & suction | IN244759 | Sliding over guiding surface with suction holes | Present | High |
Duct connection structure | IN3948834 | Flaring + linear mating, elastic seal with taper | Present in legacy configuration (per evidence) | Moderate–High |
Seal with rigidity zones | IN3948834 | Reinforced and stepped sealing profile | Claimed discontinued, likely in older models | Moderate |
AI-Based Inference
IN244759: Fully implemented in Spinpact with high-confidence groove depth match, spatial configuration, and function. Even without admission, AI reconstruction aligns the architecture clearly.
IN3948834: Technology likely embedded in earlier versions of Spinpact. Affidavit confirms withdrawal. Nonetheless, it represents an inventive airflow-sealing design pattern with high reuse potential.
Commercial & Strategic Takeaways
Duration of Infringement: IN244759 valid until May 2025. Any product sold or manufactured prior to that is within damages window.
Legal Exposure (Expired Patent): Injunction now moot for IN244759, but revenue from prior sales still under scrutiny.
Technology Stack Insight: Both patents cover distinct yet tightly coupled layers — mechanical condensation and suction integrity — that together define a modern spinning frame architecture.
IP Valuation: Damages & Monetization Analysis
Our objective is to estimate the commercial value extracted from unauthorized use of IN244759 and IN3948834 by LMW's Spinpact product line, during the patent term and prior to expiry.
Although the patent expired in May 2025, the infringement analysis remains valid for the period between product launch and expiry. The High Court recognized the expiration's legal limits but preserved factual findings for damages:
Spinpact’s grooved rollers were confirmed (Zeiss metrology: 0.15 mm depth).
Interim injunction denied post-expiry, but affidavit disclosure ordered to quantify usage and revenue tied to infringing units.
Implication: Damages or settlements may still arise based on commercial exploitation of IN244759 during its active term.
Additional factors considered for valuation:
Cross-jurisdictional Corroboration: Patents granted in Japan, Korea, China based on the same disclosure.
No prior art disclosed groove depths ≥0.04 mm with equivalent belt-nip geometry prior to priority date.
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of the patents IN244759 and IN3948834 helps stakeholders understand their maturity, commercial viability, and investment potential.
Patent | Technology | TRL | Reasoning |
IN244759 | Grooved roller + suction compact system | TRL 9 | Globally sold, implemented in LMW Spinpact, Zeiss-confirmed deployment |
IN3948834 | Sealing mechanism for modular suction ducts | TRL 8 | Previously used in production systems, replaced by alternate design later |
IP Valuation Methodology:
Royalty Range (Textile Machinery Sector Benchmarks)
Source | Rate | Notes |
Rieter licensing cases | ~4–6% | Comparable groove/compaction IP |
Uster enforcement cases | 5% | Sensor-yarn matching IP |
Indian machinery licenses | 3–5% | Based on FICCI-IPR Panel disclosures |
Benchmark Royalty Rate Used: 5%
Revenue Impact Estimate
Metric | Assumed/Estimated Value |
Spinpact Unit Price (avg.) | ₹12,00,000 ($14,500) |
Units Sold During Patent Term | ~1,500–2,500 (2015–2025, India + Export) |
Estimated Revenue (mid-case) | ₹225 Cr (₹2.25 billion or ~$27M USD) |
Effective Royalty @ 5% | ₹11.25 Cr (~$1.35M) |
Duration Covered | Until 24 May 2025 (expiry of IN244759) |
Additional Value Factors
Licensing Value: Toyota could license similar grooved roller suction tech to other Indian or ASEAN spinning OEMs using a similar royalty range.
Deterrence Value: The visible enforcement of expired patents strengthens future licensing leverage.
Export Impact: If Spinpact was sold globally (e.g., Bangladesh, Turkey, Vietnam), unlicensed use abroad adds to potential compensation.
Remedy Outlook (Based on Court Directives)
Defendant ordered to file affidavit detailing Spinpact volumes, inventory, and revenue.
Monetary remedy (damages or royalties) will be decided post-review.
Patent expired, so no injunction — but historic use still liable.
Total Estimated Infringement Value:
₹11–15 Cr ($1.3–1.8 million USD)
Factors contributing:
· Based on sales of Spinpact during the term of IN244759
· Actual amount subject to affidavit and judicial review
Multi-scenario damage estimate
Can We Consider LMW's Infringement as Willful, Longstanding, and Profitable Beyond Ordinary Use? To answer this, we’ll triangulate from the court judgment, factual timeline, and context of conduct.
Factor | Evidence from Case File | Status |
Longstanding Use | Vast number of Spinpact machines made/sold during term | Supported |
Profitable Exploitation | Implied; revenue/affidavit requested by court | Likely, pending |
Willful Infringement | No denial, no alternate design, used 0.15mm groove knowingly | Arguable |
Baseline Royalty Damages (Compensatory)
Scenario | Units Sold | Royalty (5%) |
Conservative | 1,500 | ₹9.75 Cr (~$1.17M) |
Moderate | 2,000 | ₹13.0 Cr (~$1.56M) |
Aggressive | 2,500 | ₹16.25 Cr (~$1.95M) |
These are compensatory damages, aligned with Section 108.
Additional Damages for Willfulness (Punitive Component)
Courts in India may allow enhanced damages when:
Infringement is longstanding
Defendant failed to design around or deny usage
Use appears profitable beyond incidental gain
Estimation Model:
Punitive=Multiplier×Royalty Damages
Approach | Multiplier | Additional Damages |
Minimal | 0.25× | ₹2.5–4 Cr |
Balanced (likely) | 0.5× | ₹5–8 Cr |
Aggressive | 1× | ₹9–16 Cr |
Courts rarely go beyond 0.5× in IP cases without overt bad faith.
Conclusion & Commercial Impact
Spinpact fully implements the technical core of IN244759 during its valid term. The use of groove depth ≥ 0.04 mm, aligned with suction part geometry, was not only present but central to the product's operating principle. From a technical IP enforcement viewpoint:
Likelihood of Valid Infringement: Confirmed
Scope of Damages Estimation: Substantial (pending affidavit-based revenue quantification)
Current Freedom to Operate: Yes (post-expiry)
Total Estimated Damages (with Punitive Consideration):
Scenario | Base Royalty | Punitive Damages | Total |
Conservative | ₹9.75 Cr | ₹2.5–5 Cr | ₹12.25–14.75 Cr |
Moderate | ₹13.0 Cr | ₹5–6.5 Cr | ₹18.0–19.5 Cr |
Aggressive | ₹16.25 Cr | ₹6.5–8 Cr | ₹22.75–24.25 Cr |
Court Likely Band: ₹14–19 Cr
Factors likely to contribute:
Strong infringement chart
Patent validity not yet overturned
Long duration of sales
No alternate design offered
Defendant's sealed affidavit to finalize actual sales
This range is judicially plausible if the court finds constructive willfulness but not explicit bad faith.
This case study is for educational and analytical purposes only. It illustrates how potential infringement outcomes, valuations, and compensation estimates could be predicted using AI-powered IP valuation engine. All patents, applicants, and parties are used solely to demonstrate legal-tech methodology. The matter is currently sub judice before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, and no part of this content constitutes legal advice or a final judicial determination.
About Patenti
Patenti is an AI-powered platform designed to simplify and accelerate patent valuation, infringement analysis, SEP detection, and IP commercialization. By combining legal logic with technical intelligence, Patenti helps inventors, legal teams, and investors interpret complex IP in real-world business and litigation scenarios.
Courts rely on legal doctrines like reasonable royalty and evidence of use, while IP valuators use financial models, market data, and product mapping to assess a patent’s worth. This table illustrates how key courtroom concepts can be systematically translated into valuation logic using tools like Patenti’s AI engine. The goal is not to replace legal judgment, but to support stakeholders — inventors, litigators, or licensing teams — with structured, data-informed foresight.
Court Concepts | Mapped to Patenti IP Valuation | What an IP Valuator Does |
Reasonable royalty | Relief-from-Royalty method | Benchmarks typical royalty rates (e.g., 3–7%) based on sector and IP use case |
Royalty base (apportioned) | TAM × adoption share | Estimates total addressable market, filters to applicable units, calculates base |
Economic profitability | IPScore: Market potential + licensing value | Analyzes margins, licensing potential, deployment scenarios, forecasts revenue |
Evidence of use | Detectability score + teardown reports | Evaluates if the patent can be detected in real-world products; conducts reverse engineering or sim mapping |
Willful copying | Not modeled directly, but flagged separately | Flags prior disputes, oppositions, or knowledge of prior art for litigation teams |
Appendix
Analog Success Stories from same domain
Case | Jurisdiction | Type of Patent | Outcome | Relevance to Spinpact | Source |
Rieter vs. Hongda | Shanghai, China | Textile machine design patent | Damages & injunction enforced | Machine-level structure mapping parallels roller/duct analysis | |
Uster Tech vs. Competitor | Supreme People’s Court, China | Yarn-feeder mechanism patent | Injunction & compensation confirmed | Internal mechanism match mirrors roller-seal claim chart usage |
Analog Success Stories with expired patents:
1) “Photocopying a Formula” (continued)
Like copying a recipe’s steps and structure—even if you change toppings, it’s still infringement if the core method is patented.🔗 Applies to: IN244759 Claim 1 – Full Text from Verdict
2) “You Used It When It Mattered”
If a toll road closes after 20 years, that doesn’t excuse unpaid usage during the 19 years it was active. Similarly, infringing a patent during its term still invites liability, even if it’s now expired.🔗 Applies to: Patents Act, Section 53 – Term & Expiry
Reference Sources
Source | Purpose | Link |
Delhi High Court Judgment (July 2025) | Full legal reasoning and outcome of IN244759 injunction plea | |
LMW Spinpact Product Brochure | Technical breakdown of machine features | |
Patent Document – IN244759 | Fiber bundle concentrating roller claims | |
Patent Document – IN3948834 | Suction duct sealing design claims | |
Carl Zeiss Measurement Report | Lab verification of groove depth on Spinpact rollers | Referenced in court judgment (para 13–14) |
Japanese Patent JP6558194 | Counterpart to IN3948834, confirming sealing mechanism |
TRL Assessment Table
Patent No. | Title | TRL | Deployment Evidence | Key Sources | Rationale |
IN244759 | Fiber Bundle Concentrating Apparatus | TRL 9 | - Used in LMW Spinpact during patent term - Carl Zeiss groove depth: 0.15 mm - Global commercial sales | - Delhi HC Verdict, Para 12–13 - Zeiss Report - Scribd brochures | Proven, commercialized technology with field use across years; infringement confirmed during term |
IN3948834 | Suction Duct with Elastic Sealing Member | TRL 8 | - Previously used in Spinpact - Dropped due to design change - Granted in JP as JP6558194 | - Verdict, Para 2–3 - J-PlatPat (JP6558194) | Qualified and field-tested; admitted discontinued, but clearly production-ready & commercially applied |
TRL | Meaning |
8 | System complete and qualified (pre-commercial) |
9 | Full commercial deployment and operational use |
TRL Source Standard: DST/TRIFED TRL Definition – Government of India
Glossary
Term | Definition |
IN244759 | Indian Patent for “Fiber Bundle Concentrating Apparatus in Spinning Machine” — covers grooved nip rollers and suction belt for fiber compaction. |
IN3948834 | Indian Patent for “Suction Duct for Spinning Machine” — covers a modular sealing system using flared duct ends and tapered elastic sealing member. |
Spinpact | A commercial compact spinning machine developed by LMW Ltd. Allegedly implemented technologies covered by IN244759 and IN3948834. |
Nip Roller | A roller that applies pressure to fiber bundles in a spinning machine. In IN244759, grooved rollers are essential to prevent cotton fly build-up. |
Groove Depth ≥ 0.04 mm | A key claim feature in IN244759 — the minimum groove depth on the nip roller required for effective fly control and compaction. |
Carl Zeiss Report | Independent lab analysis submitted by plaintiff confirming groove depth of 0.15 mm in Spinpact rollers. |
First Examination Report (FER) | An initial review of a patent application issued by the Indian Patent Office identifying compliance or objections under the Patents Act. |
Claim Chart | A table mapping each element of a patent claim to corresponding features in a product — used to assess infringement. |
Affidavit in Sealed Cover | A court-ordered confidential filing by LMW detailing number of Spinpact units sold, manufacturing volume, and profits (for damages estimation). |
Constructive Willfulness | A legal inference of intentional infringement drawn when the defendant fails to deny usage or offer alternate design — without explicit bad faith. |
TRL (Technology Readiness Level) | A scale from 1–9 used to assess the maturity of a technology — from idea to full deployment. IN244759 = TRL 9; IN3948834 = TRL 8. |
Reasonable Royalty | The most common damages method in IP cases — based on a hypothetical negotiation where the infringer pays to license the patent. |
Apportionment | The principle that damages should be limited to the portion of product value attributable to the patented feature (not the whole machine). |
Punitive Damages | Monetary compensation above actual damages awarded in cases of willful or egregious infringement — intended to deter future misconduct. |
Delhi High Court Judgment | The July 2025 ruling that denied injunction due to expiry of IN244759 but preserved damages claim and required LMW to disclose infringing use. |
Section 64 / Section 107 | Sections of the Indian Patents Act allowing revocation of patents based on lack of novelty, inventive step, or other grounds. |
Section 108 | Provision in the Indian Patents Act that empowers the court to grant damages or account of profits in case of patent infringement. |
Public Domain (Post-Expiry) | A state where a patented invention becomes freely usable by anyone after the 20-year term ends (e.g., IN244759 expired in May 2025). |
J-PlatPat | Japan’s official patent information platform — used to verify grant of JP6558194 (corresponding to IN3948834). |
Scribd Brochure | Public product literature submitted as supporting evidence showing Spinpact’s component design and feature set. |
Comments