This analytical legal article explores the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts concerning patent revocation and patent appeals after the abolition of the IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board). It examines two scenarios involving different High Courts and patent applications filed in different locations.

The article analyzes the concept of territorial jurisdiction under the 1970 Act, focusing on the static and dynamic effects of patent grants and their impact on commercial interests. The discussion revolves around the relevant considerations for determining the High Court's territorial jurisdiction in patent-related matters.

Introduction:
The territorial jurisdiction of High Courts plays a crucial role in patent revocation and appeal cases. This article delves into the complexities arising after the IPAB's abolition and how the jurisdiction is determined in two distinct scenarios: Patent Revocation and Patent Appeal.

Territorial Jurisdiction in Patent Revocation:

In cases of patent revocation, the High Court's territorial jurisdiction is determined based on both the static and dynamic effects of the patent grant. The High Court in the jurisdiction where the patent was granted would naturally be one of the fora with jurisdiction. However, considering the dynamic effect, the commercial interests of the petitioner, who may be affected in various jurisdictions, can influence other High Courts' jurisdiction.

Such High Courts may entertain revocation petitions under section 64 of the Act. The cause of action consists of a series of events starting with the grant of the patent, and thus, the territorial jurisdiction for revocation petitions should be decided based on the impact on the applicant's commercial interests.

Territorial Jurisdiction in Patent Appeal:

In the case of patent appeals, the jurisdiction is determined by the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the appropriate office from where the patent application originates and which is the situs of the said application. Appeals challenging the order or direction of the Patent Office under Section 117A of the 1970 Act lie before the High Court with territorial jurisdiction over the relevant patent office. The concept of cause of action cannot be pleaded to vest jurisdiction in other High Courts, i.e., other than the one where the appropriate office is located.

Concluding Note:
The determination of territorial jurisdiction of High Courts in patent revocation cases post abolition of the IPAB involves considering both the static and dynamic effects of the patent grant. While the High Court where the patent was granted holds primary jurisdiction, other High Courts may also have jurisdiction based on the petitioner's commercial interests and the impact of the patent in different locations. On the other hand, patent appeals are limited to the High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the appropriate patent office.

The Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: Dr. Reddys Laboratories limited Vs Controller of Patent and Others
Case No. C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2021
Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:004746
Name of Hon'ble Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh, HJ
Date of Judgement/Order:10.11.2022

Disclaimer:
Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539