When Cause Of Action Partly Arose In Chennai, HC Has Territorial Jurisdiction Irrespective Of Location Of "Convenient Patent Office": High Court

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that in the present case, the original petitioner had a patent and was conducting business in Chennai. Thus, the court rejected the appellant's argument that the rights of the parties played out in Delhi and that the Delhi High Court should have heard the matter.

The court was hearing an appeal preferred by a company based out of Canada, University Health Network, against the order of a single judge rejecting the preliminary objection as to the place of suing.

The appellant had claimed that since the patent application was filed in Delhi and the opposition was also filed in Delhi, the appropriate patent office was in Delhi. Thus, claiming that the entire cause of action arose in Delhi, the appellant claimed that the Delhi High Court would be the convenient forum.

The court however found Chennai to be on a better footing than Delhi as the respondent (who is the original writ petitioner) had business in Chennai and since the hearing on the opposition to grant of patent also took place in Chennai.

The court added that the appellant's claim that the Delhi office was the appropriate patent office would not undo the fact that a part of the cause of action happened in Chennai, leading to the filing of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

“The writ petitioner has got a patent and conducting its business in Chennai and the same is an integral part of the reason for the writ petitioner to oppose the grant of patent. On the contrary, the fourth respondent is based in Canada and through its attorney is filing the application in India. Therefore, it cannot be said that the primary geographical area where the rights of parties play out in Delhi and that jurisdiction is artificially vested in Chennai. If the geographical area in which the rights of parties play out is to be considered, then Chennai stands in a better footing than Delhi,” the court said.

The court also noted that with the advent of technology, the very ethos of forum conveniens and prejudice will be recalibrated.

“Moreover, with the advent of technology, in the times of quick and instant communication and virtual hearings, the very ethos relating to forum conveniens and prejudice to the parties have all to be recaliberated,” the court added.

Background

The respondent (writ petitioner) had a patent in respect of its technologies in the field of Optoelectronics. The appellant also filed an application claiming a patent in respect of a device and method for fluorescence-based imaging and monitoring at the Delhi Patent Officer. Stating that the application prejudiced the rights of the petitioner and other small and medium enterprises, the petitioner filed a pre-grant opposition at the office of the Controller of Patents, New Delhi.

The patent application and the opposition application were allotted to a Controller of Patents, based out of the Office of the Patent Controller, Chennai. She conducted the enquiry from Chennai including physical hearings and dismissed the pre-grant opposition granting a patent to the appellant.

The respondent then approached the Madras High Court challenging the order of dismissal with a consequential prayer to remand the matter for hearing the pre-grant opposition application afresh. It was also contended that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice.

The single judge, prima facie finding that there was a non-consideration of materials, granted an ad-interim order restraining the appellant from prosecuting the respondent based on the patent. While seeking to vacate the interim stay, the appellant contended that the writ petition was without jurisdiction but the same was rejected by the Single Judge. Following this, the present appeal was filed.

The court however found no ground to exercise restraint on the ground of forum conveniens. Further, since certain critical events leading to the examination of the patent, hearing, pronouncement of the order, rejection of opposition, etc happened in Chennai, the court noted that the single judge's order was not illegal or perverse.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr.Satish Parasaran, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Premchandar

Counsel for Respondents: Mrs.Vindhya S.Mani Ms.Krithika Jaganathan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 7

Case Title: University Health Network v Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited and Others

Case No: Writ Appeal No.3076 of 2023