LI Network
Published on: January 7, 2024 at 01:18 IST
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court has reaffirmed its territorial jurisdiction despite appeals claiming forum conveniens.
The Court highlighted that if part of the cause of action arises within its territory, it maintains jurisdiction regardless of the location of the relevant patent office.
The bench comprising Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed an appeal challenging the venue choice. The case involved a petitioner with a patent and business operations in Chennai. Rejecting the appellant’s argument favoring the Delhi High Court due to patent-related proceedings in Delhi, the Madras High Court found Chennai to be the rightful jurisdiction.
The appeal, filed by Canada-based University Health Network, contested that since patent-related actions occurred in Delhi, the Delhi High Court should preside. However, the Madras High Court emphasized Chennai’s relevance as the petitioner’s business location and the site for opposition hearings.
Despite the appellant’s claim of Delhi being the appropriate patent office, the Court emphasized Chennai’s significance in the petitioner’s opposition filing under Article 226. It stated that Chennai played a substantial role in the dispute, as opposed to Delhi.
The Court underlined the changing dynamics of forum conveniens due to technological advancements, reshaping conventional notions of prejudice and convenience for the parties involved.
Background:
The case involved a patent dispute in Optoelectronics. The appellant filed a patent application at the Delhi Patent Officer, contested by the respondent. The opposition proceedings, allocated to a Chennai-based Patent Controller, led to a grant of patent to the appellant.
The respondent approached the Madras High Court, challenging the grant, citing procedural violations. A single judge, acknowledging potential shortcomings, imposed an interim stay on the appellant’s actions based on the patent. Subsequent appeals contesting the jurisdiction were dismissed, reinforcing Chennai’s jurisdictional authority due to significant events occurring in the city.
The Court concluded that the single judge’s ruling was lawful and declined to intervene on grounds of forum conveniens.