Patent infringement suits against another patentee remain maintainable, and local sale of the product can found territorial jurisdiction.
A patent infringement plaint was held not liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 because the plaint disclosed a prima facie cause of action, and objections on authorisation and territorial jurisdiction were treated as matters for trial. A suit for infringement against another patentee was held maintainable because Section 48 confers exclusionary rights, while validity or priority disputes are defences on the merits; the sale of the allegedly infringing product in Delhi formed part of the cause of action, giving territorial jurisdiction under Section 20(c) CPC. Defendant no. 1 was deleted as no specific averment showed an independent role in the alleged infringement, and Section 124 was treated as relating to penal, not personal civil, liability.
Issues: (i) whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for want of cause of action, lack of authorisation, or absence of territorial jurisdiction; (ii) whether a suit for patent infringement can be maintained against another patentee and whether Delhi court had territorial jurisdiction; (iii) whether defendant no. 1 was a necessary or proper party liable to be retained in the suit.
Issue (i): whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for want of cause of action, lack of authorisation, or absence of territorial jurisdiction.
Analysis: In considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11, only the plaint averments and accompanying documents are to be examined. If the plaint prima facie discloses a cause of action, rejection is impermissible. The plaint alleged subsisting patent rights, infringement by the defendants, and facts giving rise to the suit. The objections that the suit was not filed by an authorised person and that no territorial jurisdiction existed were held to be matters requiring trial or falling to be tested on the plaint allegations, which had to be accepted at that stage.
Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, and the application was dismissed.
Issue (ii): whether a suit for patent infringement can be maintained against another patentee and whether Delhi court had territorial jurisdiction.
Analysis: The rights conferred by Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970 were treated as exclusionary rights, not a licence to use the invention free from earlier patents. Section 107 preserved all revocation grounds as defences in an infringement suit, showing that the existence of another patent is a defence on merits and not a threshold bar to maintainability. Sections 107A and 108 also supported the view that the statute contemplates infringement actions and remedies even where patent validity or priority is disputed. On jurisdiction, the sale of the allegedly infringing product within Delhi was held to constitute part of the cause of action, and by virtue of Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction.
Conclusion: A patent infringement suit against another patentee was held maintainable, and the Delhi High Court was held to have territorial jurisdiction.
Issue (iii): whether defendant no. 1 was a necessary or proper party liable to be retained in the suit.
Analysis: Section 124 of the Patents Act, 1970 was held to deal with penal liability and not to create personal civil liability for company officers in an infringement suit. As no clear or specific averment showed an independent role of defendant no. 1 in the alleged infringement, he was found not to be a necessary or proper party.
Conclusion: Defendant no. 1 was ordered to be deleted from the array of parties.
Final Conclusion: The suit was permitted to proceed, the challenge to its maintainability and jurisdiction failed, and one impleaded defendant was removed from the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: A patent confers an exclusionary right, so the existence of another patent is not a bar to an infringement suit; disputes over priority or validity are matters for defence on merits, while sale of the infringing product within the forum jurisdiction constitutes part of the cause of action.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
