Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a plaint must be presented before a Court having territorial jurisdiction. To determine whether a Court has jurisdiction, it must be shown that a substantial part of the cause of action arose within that jurisdiction.

Recently, in the case of Universal Speciality Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s Ramcides CropScience Pvt. Ltd. [A.No.2727 of 2024 in C.S. (Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2024], the Madras High Court examined the principles governing where a plaint can be presented in patent infringement suits.

The Plaintiff argued that (i) the patent was registered and renewed by the Chennai Patent Office, (ii) the infringing product was sold within Chennai, and (iii) the defendant had also filed a revocation petition before the Madras High Court. The Defendant, however, contended that there was no sale or commercial activity within Chennai and that the grant of patent alone cannot confer jurisdiction, relying on the Full Bench decision in Duro Flex Pvt. Ltd. vs Duroflex Sittings System [2014 (5) LW 673].

The Court clarified that while the grant of a patent by the Patent Office located within a particular territorial jurisdiction may form one of the material facts contributing to the cause of action, this fact per se is insufficient to confer jurisdiction. Accordingly, the mere circumstance that a patent was granted by a Patent Office situated in a given territory does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to present the plaint before the Court in that territory.

The Court held that in any action for infringement, whether of a trademark or a patent, the most critical element of the cause of action is the commercial sale of the infringing product within the territorial limits of the Court. In cases of patent infringement, the place of manufacture of the infringing product may also determine jurisdiction.

Since the plaint contained no averments or evidence of sale or manufacture of the infringing product in Chennai, and the Defendant affirmed that no such activity occurred within that jurisdiction, the Court found no territorial nexus with Chennai. The Court also recorded the Defendant’s undertaking to withdraw the pending revocation petition after filing a counter-claim for revocation before the appropriate jurisdictional Court.

Accordingly, the Court revoked the leave granted earlier to sue, directing the return of the plaint for presentation before the Court having jurisdiction.