Short Summary
The plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of Patent No.265920 in the Commercial Court. Due to the defendant filing a counter-claim for revocation, the suit was transferred to the High Court. The core issue before the court was whether this transferred patent dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Division or the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court.
Detailed Summary
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.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana). Understanding the court's reasoning in M/S.Spc Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd vs M/S.Ameya Laboratories Ltd is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr.vsWestcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
Astrazeneca filed suit against Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited alleging infringement of its patent (IN 297581) covering the cancer drug Osimertinib. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages, asserting that the defendant's offer to contractually manufacture and sell the patented compound constituted infringement. Despite initial defenses by the defendant regarding regulatory approval issues, the court found that due to the defendant's failure to file a written statement within the statutory period, the suit was decreed in favor of AstraZeneca, granting them relief and substantial costs.
Prem Raj Parekh (Deceased) / Abhishek ParakhvsShah Food Products And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the substitution of the deceased Plaintiff, Prem Raj Parekh, with his legal representative, Abhishek Parakh. This order facilitated the continuation of the trademark suit, allowing the applicant to formally assign ownership of Trademark No. 543474 in his name. While the procedural hurdle was cleared, the court explicitly left open the substantive objections raised by the Defendant regarding the Plaintiff's actual ownership of the trademark, setting the stage for further litigation.
Natco Pharma LimitedvsBristol Myers Squibb Company And Anr
The court consolidated a rectification petition and a suit related to the same patent. An additional issue was framed regarding whether Indian Patent IN 247381 is liable for revocation under specific sections of the Patents Act, 1970.
ITC LimitedvsKhayrul Bashar And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed ITC Limited's application for rectification against the trademark 'NEEMYLE'. The court found that the registration was obtained wrongfully because the Registrar failed to conduct a proper and adequate search of earlier, similar marks. Given the prior extensive use and established goodwill of ITC's mark 'NIMYLE', the continuance of the impugned mark was deemed contrary to public interest, leading to its cancellation.
Reliance Industries Ltd.vsAnand Traders And Others
Reliance Industries Ltd. challenged the Assistant Registrar's order which dismissed its opposition against Anand Traders' application for the label mark 'SONAL'. The petitioner argued that 'SONAL' was deceptively similar to their registered trade mark 'VIMAL', leading to potential confusion among consumers of textile goods.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.