Tendering authority’s location and pending revocation proceedings establish territorial jurisdiction for patent infringement suits.

The Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction and patent infringement regarding Patent No. IN284904 ("Suit Patent")

Before the suit was filed, the Defendant initiated a Revocation Petition (C.O. (COMM. IPD-PAT) No. 4/2023) under Section 64 of the Patents Act before the Delhi High Court

The Defendant filed I.A. 24284/2023 under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection or return of the plaint, arguing that no cause of action arose in Delhi as the Defendant is based in Maharashtra and the primary project (Ayodhya Airport) is in Uttar Pradesh

In response, the Plaintiffs filed I.A. 20475/2023 under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the plaint to clarify jurisdictional facts, including the involvement of the Airports Authority of India (AAI) in Delhi and an apprehended project ("Khyber") in Delhi

1. Whether the Plaint discloses a cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to survive an application under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of the CPC.

2. Whether an amendment to the Plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC can be allowed when territorial jurisdiction is challenged, and if such amendments are clarificatory or introduce a new cause of action.

3. Whether the prior filing of a Revocation Petition by the Defendant in this Court influences the jurisdiction for a subsequent infringement suit under Sections 64 and 104 of the Patents Act.

Section 20(c) of the CPC, which allows a suit to be instituted where the cause of action arises, wholly or in part

proviso to Section 104 and Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, which mandates that a suit for infringement and a counterclaim for revocation be heard by the same High Court, as interpreted in Aloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra

principles of quia timet actions from Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Prag Distillery Pvt. Ltd., which allow for preventive action based on apprehended infringement

Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, emphasizing that amendments necessary for determining the real controversy should be allowed if they do not alter the nature of the suit

The Court observed that for the purpose of Order VII Rule 11, the plaint must be read as a whole

It found that although the Ayodhya Airport was in Uttar Pradesh, the tender was issued by the AAI from its Delhi office, and the contractual chain involved entities with registered offices in Delhi, establishing a partial cause of action under Section 20(c) of the CPC

The Court further reasoned that since the Defendant had already invoked the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court by filing a Revocation Petition, a conjoint reading of Sections 64 and 104 of the Patents Act requires the infringement suit to be heard by the same Court to avoid conflicting decisions

Regarding the quia timet action, the Court held that the Plaintiffs had made foundational averments regarding a credible threat of infringement via the "Khyber" project in Delhi

Finally, the Court determined that the requested amendments were clarificatory, aimed at elaborating on existing jurisdictional facts rather than manufacturing a new cause of action, and were therefore permissible under Order VI Rule 17

Simultaneously, the Court allowed the Plaintiffs' amendment application (I.A. 20475/2023), directing the amended plaint be taken on record as the changes were essential for adjudicating the real dispute and caused no prejudice to the Defendant

The Defendant was granted four weeks to file an amended Written Statement