https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197945 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. en-us Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:07:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197945 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197945