Shimla,May 11
Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused to reject a commercial suit filed by Swiss company Geobrugg AG against Techfab (India) Industries Limited in an alleged patent infringement dispute relating to high-tensile steel wire mesh used for protection against landslides and rockfall.
Justice Sandeep Sharma recently dismissed the defendant’s application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, holding that the objections raised by the company did not justify termination of the suit at the threshold.
Geobrugg AG, a Switzerland-based firm engaged in manufacturing protective systems against natural hazards, claimed that Techfab was manufacturing and selling wire mesh products infringing its Indian patents numbered 448244 and 454374.
The plaintiff alleged that the impugned products were being sold in Himachal Pradesh through a third party in Kullu district.
Techfab had argued that the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiff failed to undertake mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
It further contended that the Himachal Pradesh High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the third-party distributor, Urbtech Engineering Construction Private Limited, had not been impleaded as a necessary party.
Rejecting these objections, the court held that non-joinder of a party cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The High Court observed that the plaintiff had sought urgent interim relief alleging continuous infringement of intellectual property rights and therefore pre-institution mediation was not mandatory in the present case.
During the proceedings, the plaintiff also submitted that the impugned products were available through the IndiaMART platform and could be ordered in Himachal Pradesh, thereby supporting the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. However, the plaintiff stated that it had already obtained invoices showing sale of the products within Himachal Pradesh and therefore did not need to procure the products separately through IndiaMART.
The court further ruled that part of the cause of action had arisen in Himachal Pradesh because the allegedly infringing products were delivered and accepted in Kullu, giving the High Court territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The patent infringement suit will now proceed for adjudication before the High Court.
About the Author
