Court rules non-joinder of necessary party and lack of pre-institution mediation are not grounds for rejection of the suit in patent infringement case.
In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed an application for the rejection of a plaint filed by Geobrugg AG, a Swiss company, against Techfab (India) Industries Limited for patent infringement. The court, presided over by Justice Sandeep Sharma, found that the grounds cited for rejection, including non-joinder of a necessary party and non-compliance with pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, were insufficient to dismiss the suit.
The case revolves around alleged infringement of Geobrugg AG's patents related to high-tensile steel wire netting, which is used for protection against natural hazards. The defendant, Techfab, contended that the suit was vexatious and should be dismissed due to the non-joinder of a necessary party, Urbtech Engineering Construction Private Limited, from whom the plaintiff obtained the allegedly infringing products. Additionally, they argued that the plaintiff failed to adhere to pre-institution mediation procedures, which should render the suit inadmissible.
However, the court held that non-joinder of parties cannot be a ground for rejection of a plaint, in line with provisions under Order I Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Justice Sharma emphasized that the court could proceed with the suit regarding the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. Moreover, the court determined that pre-institution mediation is not mandatory in cases where urgent interim relief is sought, as was in the present case due to ongoing patent infringement causing irreparable harm to Geobrugg AG.
The court further affirmed its territorial jurisdiction, stating that the cause of action arose in Himachal Pradesh, where the sale and delivery of the infringing product took place. The presence of Techfab's product on an interactive website, Indiamart, accessible from Himachal Pradesh, further established jurisdiction.
The judgment underscores the court's stance on ensuring that procedural technicalities do not hinder the adjudication of substantive rights, especially in cases involving ongoing violations of intellectual property rights. The decision allows Geobrugg AG's suit to proceed to trial, providing an opportunity for the plaintiff to substantiate its claims of patent infringement against Techfab.
Bottom line:-
Application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed due to non-joinder of necessary party and non-compliance with pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Statutory provision(s): Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Order I Rule 9 CPC, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 20 CPC, Section 41 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
Geobrugg AG v. Techfab (India) Industries Limited, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2898840
