Geobrugg vs Techfab: Himachal HC rejects plea to throw out Patent suit
Shimla, May 11
In a significant order, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused to reject a commercial suit filed by Geobrugg AG against Techfab (India) Industries Limited in an alleged patent infringement dispute involving high-tensile steel wire mesh used for landslide and rockfall protection.
Justice Sandeep Sharma dismissed the defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, holding that the objections raised did not warrant rejection of the plaint at the threshold stage.
Geobrugg AG, a Switzerland-based firm engaged in manufacturing protective systems against natural hazards, has alleged that Techfab was manufacturing and selling wire mesh products that infringe its Indian patents numbered 448244 and 454374. According to the plaintiff, the disputed products were being marketed in Himachal Pradesh through a third party in the Kullu district.
Techfab, in its defence, argued that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had not undertaken mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. It also questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and contended that the alleged distributor, Urbtech Engineering Construction Private Limited, had not been impleaded as a necessary party.
Also read:High Court orders probe into Substandard drug manufacturing in Baddi
Rejecting these objections, the court held that non-joinder of a party cannot be a ground for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It further observed that since the plaintiff had sought urgent interim relief citing ongoing infringement of intellectual property rights, the requirement of pre-institution mediation was not mandatory in the present case.
On the issue of jurisdiction, the court noted the plaintiff’s submission that the allegedly infringing products were accessible in Himachal Pradesh, including through online platforms such as IndiaMART, and could be ordered within the state. The plaintiff also placed on record invoices indicating sale and delivery of the products in Himachal Pradesh.
Taking these factors into account, the High Court held that part of the cause of action had arisen within the state, as the products were delivered and accepted in Kullu. This, the court ruled, was sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction.
With these findings, the High Court declined to terminate the proceedings at the preliminary stage. The patent infringement suit will now proceed for adjudication on merits.
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.
