Foreign anti-suit injunction cannot block an Indian patent infringement action maintainable only in the competent Indian forum.

A foreign anti-suit injunction could not be enforced to stop prosecution of an Indian patent infringement suit maintainable only before the competent Indian court. The Delhi High Court noted that the Wuhan proceedings concerned a broader global FRAND dispute, while the Indian action concerned infringement of specified Indian patents, so the foreign order could not defeat domestic adjudicatory jurisdiction. Because the foreign injunction was obtained without fair disclosure and operated oppressively, anti-enforcement relief was granted. The court also directed protection against any coercive fine linked to continued Indian proceedings, requiring the defendants to secure the amount so the plaintiffs would be indemnified if enforcement was attempted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to restrain the defendants from enforcing the Wuhan Court's anti-suit injunction order so as to continue prosecuting the Indian patent infringement suit and interlocutory injunction application; (ii) whether the defendants should be directed to secure or deposit any fine imposed by the Wuhan Court for continued prosecution of the Indian proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to restrain the defendants from enforcing the Wuhan Court's anti-suit injunction order so as to continue prosecuting the Indian patent infringement suit and interlocutory injunction application.

Analysis: The suit concerned infringement of specified Indian patents, and the claim for injunction against infringement could be pursued only before the Indian court having territorial jurisdiction under the Patents Act and the Code of Civil Procedure. The Wuhan proceedings concerned a different controversy, namely a global FRAND rate dispute over the plaintiffs' broader patent portfolio, and mere overlap on FRAND aspects did not justify halting the Indian infringement action. A foreign anti-suit order that prevented prosecution of a claim maintainable only in India, particularly where the foreign court was not competent to decide the infringement issue, was oppressive and contrary to the plaintiff's right to seek legal redress. The order was also obtained without fair disclosure of the anti-suit application to the plaintiffs, which strengthened the case for restraint on enforcement.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were entitled to an anti-enforcement injunction, and the defendants were restrained from enforcing the Wuhan Court's order against them.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendants should be directed to secure or deposit any fine imposed by the Wuhan Court for continued prosecution of the Indian proceedings.

Analysis: Since enforcement of the Wuhan order against the plaintiffs was injuncted, any fine or coercive monetary consequence flowing from that order, if attempted to be imposed for the plaintiffs' pursuit of remedies in India, required corresponding protection. The defendants had also relied on the supposed inability to control enforcement of the foreign order, making restitutionary protection appropriate. On principles of restitution and to neutralise the oppressive effect of the foreign order, a direction securing the amount was justified.

Conclusion: The defendants were required to secure the amount corresponding to any such fine, so that the plaintiffs could be indemnified if the foreign court enforced it.

Final Conclusion: The judgment protected the Indian patent holder's exclusive right to pursue infringement remedies in the competent Indian forum and prevented the foreign anti-suit order from defeating that jurisdiction, while also providing monetary protection against coercive consequences of the foreign order.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign court cannot, absent justified oppression or vexation, restrain a party from prosecuting an infringement action that lies exclusively before the competent Indian court, and Indian courts may grant anti-enforcement relief to prevent such a foreign order from nullifying domestic adjudicatory jurisdiction.

---