In the case of Kubota Corporation vs Godabari Agro Machinery and Services India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [CS(COMM) 655/2023], the Delhi High Court examined whether an “offer for sale” of an infringing product is sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction under Section 20(c) CPC.

The Plaintiff, Kubota Corporation, brought a suit for patent infringement against Godabari Agro Machinery (based in Odisha) and two Chinese companies. The Defendant moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint, contending that the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction since none of the parties were based in Delhi and no sales had occurred there.

The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff had made only vague assertions of sale or offer for sale within Delhi and that no material had been produced to show that the impugned products were commercially available in the territory. They further claimed that the alleged email communication relied upon by the Plaintiff was merely a trap transaction and that the person corresponding with the Plaintiff’s investigator, Mr. Raj Narayan Singh, had no proven connection with the Defendants.

The Plaintiff relied on the affidavit of its investigator who deposed that he had contacted Mr. Raj Narayan Singh, the Sales Manager of Defendant no. 1, seeking a quotation for delivery of the impugned product “RUILONG PLUS ++” combine harvester in Delhi. The investigator’s affidavit was supported by email correspondence, wherein Mr. Singh confirmed the product’s availability and shared a price quotation through Agroharvest Solutions Pvt. Ltd., an authorized distributor of the Defendants. The Plaintiff also produced the visiting card of Mr. Singh, establishing his position as Sales Manager with Defendant no. 1.

The Defendants contended that the quotation was issued by Agroharvest Solutions, a third party not impleaded in the suit, and that the communication could not establish any sale or offer by the Defendants themselves. The Court rejected this objection, holding that there was no need to implead Agroharvest, since the offer emanated through Mr. Singh, an admitted employee of Defendant no. 1.

Further, the Court noted that although the plaint also referred to the listing of the impugned product on IndiaMART, the Plaintiff chose not to press that ground for establishing jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court did not examine jurisdiction on the basis of online listings and confined its consideration to the “offer for sale” argument.

The Court held that under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970, a patentee’s exclusive rights extend not only to preventing the sale of the patented product but also any “offer for sale” made without authorization. Therefore, even in the absence of an actual sale within Delhi, an offer for sale and delivery within the Court’s territory was sufficient to constitute part of the cause of action.

The Court concluded that the documents placed on record by the Plaintiff demonstrated a clear willingness to supply the impugned product in Delhi, thereby establishing that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court under Section 20(c) CPC.

Rejecting the Defendants’ contention that the transaction was a “trap purchase,” the Court distinguished Banyan Tree Holding vs A. Murali Krishna Reddy [2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780], observing that the said case dealt with a mere website accessible in Delhi, whereas in the present case, there was a specific and targeted offer for sale made in response to a direct inquiry from Delhi.

Accordingly, the Court held that the issue of territorial jurisdiction could not be rejected at the threshold and would have to be determined at trial. The Defendants’ application for return of the plaint was therefore dismissed.