Defendants Misused Legal Provisions to Delay Proceedings; Costs Imposed on Defendants
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has dismissed multiple Notices of Motion filed by TVS Electronics Ltd. and others seeking the summary dismissal of suits filed by Bharat Bhogilal Patel for patent infringement. The court has ordered the cases to proceed to trial, imposing costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the defendants for misuse of legal provisions and causing delays.
Justice Arif S. Doctor presided over the hearings, where the defendants argued that the patents in question had been revoked by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) orders, rendering the suits unsustainable. However, the court found that the revocation orders were consequential to an earlier order, which had been set aside, raising triable issues that necessitate trial determination.
The litigation revolves around two patents granted to Patel for an improved laser marking and engraving machine and a process for manufacturing engraved design articles. Despite the IPAB revoking these patents in subsequent orders, the Bombay High Court noted that these orders were based solely on the initial revocation order, which was subsequently stayed and set aside by the Madras High Court.
Justice Doctor emphasized that the subsequent orders lacked independent reasoning and were not given effect, as evidenced by the patents' continued renewal and listing as "in force" on the e-Register. The court highlighted the necessity to determine the legal effect of the stay orders and the conduct of the Controller of Patents during the trial.
The plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Bhuvan Singh, argued that the patents were renewed and treated as valid despite the IPAB's orders, pointing out the lack of any legal injury to the plaintiff. The court agreed, noting that the defendants did not pursue deletion of the patents from the register, which indicated their understanding that the patents were not effectively revoked.
The court dismissed the defendants' attempt to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, citing the need for trial to resolve disputed facts and legal consequences. The decision underscores the importance of proper legal process and the misuse of procedural rules to delay justice.
The ruling ensures that the suits will proceed to trial, where crucial issues like the independence of subsequent revocation orders, the impact of renewal, and alleged suppression of material facts by the plaintiff will be thoroughly examined. The defendants have been granted a four-week stay on the order of costs, allowing time to appeal.
Bottom line:-
Patent law - Summary dismissal of suits under Order XIII-A CPC - Plaintiff's patents were revoked by IPAB orders but were shown as "in force" in the e-Register due to subsequent renewals - Whether revocation orders were consequential or independent and their legal effect required trial determination.
Statutory provision(s):
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XIII-A, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11, Patents Act, 1970 Section 71(c), Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
M/s. TVS Electronics Ltd., (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2895659
