Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. & Ors. v. Natco Pharma Ltd.
2014 (59) PTC 124
Appellant had a process Patent. Appellant filed a quia timet suit before the Delhi High Court towards infringement of Patent as the Respondent was in the process of exporting the product manufactured by the process covered in the Patent.
Respondent filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC seeking return of Plaint.
Learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court allowed the application and dismissed the suit by holding that there is no averment in the plaint of the violation of the process patent of the Appellant in Delhi. Since the suit is for Process Patent, the pleadings as regards the product being sold in Delhi or the possibility of the product being launched in Delhi or elsewhere cannot justify the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
The Division Bench allowed the appeal and restored the suit by observing as follows:
We are of the opinion that once the Appellants have pleaded apprehension of sale/marketing in Delhi, the Courts in Delhi would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit and such jurisdiction cannot be ousted by the Respondent by making a statement not to do any such act in Delhi, though the Respondent would be entitled to prove that there is no basis for such apprehension.
The averments in the plaint extend to apprehension of marketing by the Respondent of the products manufactured by the process patented by the Appellants in Delhi. Thus, as per dicta in Bristol Myers Squibb, Courts at Delhi would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.