Territorial jurisdiction in patent suits depends on pleaded cause of action; Section 104A does not govern forum selection.

Clause 12 leave in a patent infringement suit is assessed on the plaint averments to see whether part of the cause of action arises within jurisdiction, not by a summary weighing of evidence. Section 104 of the Patents Act governs the forum for infringement suits, while Section 104A concerns burden of proof and does not control territorial jurisdiction. A pleaded sale of the impugned product within Chennai, supported by trap orders, was sufficient to sustain leave at the threshold. The doctrine of forum conveniens may be relevant, but it applies only where another forum is shown to be clearly more appropriate; that was not established here.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent could be revoked on the ground that the pleaded part of the cause of action was insignificant and that Section 104A of the Patents Act, 1970 affected territorial jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the doctrine of forum conveniens or forum non conveniens justified revocation of leave in the patent infringement suit.

Issue (i): Whether leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent could be revoked on the ground that the pleaded part of the cause of action was insignificant and that Section 104A of the Patents Act, 1970 affected territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: Clause 12 requires the Court, at the stage of leave, to see whether a part of the cause of action arises within jurisdiction. The inquiry is based on the plaint averments, and not on a summary assessment of evidence. Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970 governs the forum for patent infringement suits, while Section 104A concerns burden of proof and does not determine jurisdiction. The presence of trap orders and the pleaded sale of the impugned product within Chennai constituted a pleaded part of the cause of action sufficient to sustain leave at the threshold.

Conclusion: The revocation of leave could not be sustained on the ground that the cause of action pleaded within jurisdiction was insignificant or on the basis of Section 104A of the Patents Act, 1970.

Issue (ii): Whether the doctrine of forum conveniens or forum non conveniens justified revocation of leave in the patent infringement suit.

Analysis: The doctrine may be relevant while considering grant or revocation of leave under Clause 12, but it operates only when another forum is shown to be clearly more appropriate on the materials before the Court. The respondents did not establish that another court was more suitable for trial, and the question whether the defendants actually sold the offending product within jurisdiction was one for trial, not for summary disposal on an application to revoke leave. The suit, being a commercial patent dispute, should proceed in the forum where part of the cause of action was pleaded to arise.

Conclusion: Forum conveniens did not warrant revocation of leave.

Final Conclusion: The order revoking leave was set aside, the appeals were allowed, and the suit was restored to the file of the Commercial Division.

---