The matter before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras revolved around the intricate issue of jurisdiction concerning the entertainment of a writ petition challenging the refusal of a pre-grant notice of opposition related to a patent application filed in Delhi. The central question was whether the Madras High Court had the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a matter as the Patent Application and pre grant notice of opposition was filed in Delhi.

Factual Background:
The Petitioner, seeking to oppose the Indian Patent Application No.9067/DELNP/2010 of the fourth respondent related to a fluorescence-based imaging and monitoring device, initiated pre-grant opposition proceedings before the Delhi office of the Controller. However, despite the filing being in Delhi, the hearing took place in Chennai and pre grant notice of opposition was rjected. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the pre-grant opposition, the Petitioner approached the Madras High Court through a writ petition.

Jurisdictional Challenge:
The primary contention revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. The locus of the patent application and the pre-grant notice of opposition was Delhi, raising doubts about the appropriateness of approaching the Madras High Court. However, the Petitioner anchored the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court on the grounds of accrual of cause of action, contending that the grant of the patent would adversely impact its business operations in Chennai.

Legal Analysis:
The constitutional framework governing the jurisdiction of High Courts in India is encapsulated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The provision empowers any High Court to exercise jurisdiction within the territories where the cause of action, wholly or partially, arises, irrespective of the seat of the Government, authority, or the residence of the concerned parties.

The Madras High Court, in its wisdom, interpreted Article 226 expansively to assert its jurisdiction. The Court underscored that the crucial determinant for invoking its jurisdiction was the accrual of cause of action. Given that the Petitioner's business interests in Chennai would be significantly affected by the grant of the patent in Delhi, the Madras High Court concluded that it possessed the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

Implications:
The Madras High Court's decision exemplifies a purposive and liberal interpretation of jurisdiction, emphasizing the substantive justice over technicalities. By adopting a cause-of-action-based approach, the Court ensured that litigants are not unduly circumscribed by rigid territorial boundaries, particularly in matters where the repercussions transcend geographical confines.

The Concluding Note:
The Madras High Court's adjudication elucidates the evolving jurisprudential stance on jurisdictional issues in India, particularly in the realm of intellectual property rights. By emphasizing the primacy of the cause of action, the Court harmonized constitutional imperatives with the exigencies of justice, thereby reaffirming the expansive ambit of Article 226 in safeguarding individual and corporate rights against potential infringements, irrespective of geographical limitations.

The Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: University Health Network Vs Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited
Date of Judgement/Order:03.01.2024
Case No. Writ Appeal No.3076 of 2023
Neutral Citation: 2023:BHC:AS:37466
Name of Hon'ble Court: Chennai High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sanjay V Gangapurwala and D Bharwtha Chakravarthy, H.J.

Disclaimer:
Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

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