M/S.Spc Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd v. M/S.Ameya Laboratories Ltd

Patent battles are rarely just about innovation — they are also about where you fight. When a patent infringement suit is filed in one court but a counter-claim for revocation drags it elsewhere, the question of jurisdiction becomes the first real battleground. This case is a masterclass in that procedural minefield, and every founder or IP professional needs to understand it before stepping into the ring.

The dispute began when M/s SPC Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff, filed a suit for infringement of Patent No. 265920 in the Commercial Court. The defendant, M/s Ameya Laboratories Ltd., responded not just with a defense but with a counter-claim seeking revocation of the patent. Under the proviso to Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, the presence of such a revocation counter-claim triggered the transfer of the entire suit to the High Court. Once there, a critical procedural question emerged: should this transferred patent dispute be heard by the Commercial Division of the High Court, or by the Commercial Appellate Division?

The central legal friction revolved around the interplay between two statutes — the Patents Act, 1970, and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff effectively argued that the transferred suit should be governed by the jurisdictional framework of the Commercial Courts Act, specifically Sections 7 and 13, which govern the original and appellate jurisdiction of Commercial Divisions within High Courts. The counter-argument, rooted in the proviso to Section 104 of the Patents Act, was that suits transferred under this provision carry their own procedural character and are not automatically bound by the Commercial Courts Act's jurisdictional architecture. The deeper complication was that the High Court in question lacked ordinary original civil jurisdiction in the relevant area, which made the application of Sections 7 and 13 of the Commercial Courts Act even more uncertain.

The court ultimately remanded the matter, recognizing that the jurisdictional question could not be resolved without careful consideration of how the proviso to Section 104 of the Patents Act interacts with the Commercial Courts Act. The court acknowledged that suits and counter-claims transferred to the High Court under the proviso to Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, are not necessarily bound by the jurisdictional provisions (Sections 7 and 13) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — particularly when the High Court lacks ordinary original civil jurisdiction in that area. Rather than forcing the case into a jurisdictional box that did not fit, the court sent it back for proper determination.

For founders, startup leaders, and IP professionals, the lesson is clear: jurisdiction is not a formality — it is a strategic weapon. Before filing a patent infringement suit, map out not just where your case starts, but where it could end up if the defendant files a revocation counter-claim. Understand that the proviso to Section 104 of the Patents Act can pull your case into a High Court that may not have a Commercial Division with original jurisdiction, creating procedural uncertainty. Build your litigation strategy around this possibility from day one, and never assume that the court where you file will be the court where the battle is ultimately decided.