Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Bharat Bhogilal Patel, filed two suits for infringement of two patents granted in 2003. The defendants, TVS Electronics Ltd. and Kalelkar Surgicals Pvt. Ltd., moved applications under Order XIII-A CPC for summary dismissal and under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, arguing that the patents had been revoked by the IPAB prior to the filing of the suits. The IPAB had revoked the patents on 12 June 2012, and subsequent orders on 14 March 2013 and 7 March 2014 also revoked them. The plaintiff had challenged the first revocation order before the Madras High Court, which stayed that order, but the stay did not revive the patents. The court held that the revocation of the patents extinguished the plaintiff's right to sue for infringement, and the stay of the first order did not restore the patents. Therefore, the suits were not maintainable. The court allowed the defendants' motions, dismissing the suits and rejecting the plaint.
Headnote
A) Patent Law - Infringement Suit - Maintainability - Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 48, 64, 104 - Suit for infringement filed after patent revoked by IPAB - Held that a suit for infringement is not maintainable if the patent was revoked prior to the filing of the suit, as the plaintiff loses locus standi and cause of action (Paras 1-10).
B) Civil Procedure - Summary Judgment - Order XIII-A CPC - Application for summary dismissal of suit - Held that where the defendant demonstrates that the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim, the court may grant summary judgment dismissing the suit (Paras 2-10).
C) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - No cause of action - Held that if the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, it is liable to be rejected; a suit for infringement of a revoked patent discloses no cause of action (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit for infringement of a patent is maintainable when the patent had been revoked prior to the filing of the suit.
Final Decision
The court allowed the defendants' motions, dismissing the suits and rejecting the plaint. The court held that the revocation of the patents extinguished the plaintiff's right to sue, and the stay did not revive the patents.
Law Points
- Patent infringement suit not maintainable if patent revoked prior to filing
- Summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC
- Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for no cause of action
- Locus standi requires subsisting patent
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (05) 1
Notice of Motion CD No. 820 of 2018 with Notice of Motion CD No. 1604 of 2019 in Commercial IP Suit No. 359 of 2017; Notice of Motion CD No. 1602 of 2019 with Notice of Motion CD No. 1593 of 2019 in Commercial IP Suit No. 927 of 2018
Mr. Bhuvan Singh a/w. Jinal Shah a/w. Shweta Rathod i/b. Elixir Legal Services for the Plaintiff; Mr. H.W. Kane a/w. Mr. Kanak Kadam i/b. W.S. Kane & Co. for Defendants; Mr. Vinit Jain a/w. Mr. Gaurav Mhatre & Mr. Ashok Varma for Defendant No. 2 in COMIP/359/2017
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suits for patent infringement with applications for summary dismissal and rejection of plaint.
Remedy Sought
Defendants sought summary dismissal of the suits and rejection of the plaint on the ground that the patents were revoked prior to filing.
Filing Reason
Plaintiff filed suits alleging infringement of two patents granted in 2003.
Previous Decisions
IPAB revoked the patents on 12 June 2012, 14 March 2013, and 7 March 2014. Madras High Court stayed the first revocation order on 19 November 2012.
Issues
Whether a suit for infringement of a patent is maintainable when the patent had been revoked prior to the filing of the suit.
Submissions/Arguments
Defendants argued that the patents were revoked before the suits were filed, so the plaintiff had no locus standi and no cause of action.
Plaintiff argued that the stay of the first revocation order by the Madras High Court revived the patents.
Ratio Decidendi
A suit for infringement of a patent is not maintainable if the patent was revoked prior to the filing of the suit, as the plaintiff loses locus standi and cause of action. A stay of a revocation order does not revive the patent.
Judgment Excerpts
the Plaintiff did not have locus and/or any cause of action for filing the said Suits since the above-mentioned patents had been revoked on the date when the captioned Suits were filed.
a Suit for infringement of the said patents would not be maintainable.
Procedural History
Patents granted in 2003. IPAB revoked patents on 12 June 2012, 14 March 2013, and 7 March 2014. Plaintiff filed writ petitions in Madras High Court, which stayed the first order on 19 November 2012. Plaintiff filed infringement suits in 2017 and 2018. Defendants filed motions for summary dismissal and rejection of plaint. Court heard motions and pronounced judgment on 7 May 2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order XIII-A, Order VII Rule 11
- Patents Act, 1970:
