INDIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Anu Paarcha, Aniruddh Bhatia, Mishthi Dubey and N Parvati, Saikrishna & Associates
• Final arguments are heard, and the case is then reserved for judgment. It is also pos- sible to appeal the judgment, before a larger bench, within 60 days from its pronounce- ment. 5.2 Decision-Makers Infringement suits/revocation proceedings in India are determined by a judge, whereas the ini- tial prosecution/opposition to the patents would be decided by the Controller of Patents. While this varies from court to court, some courts in India (such as the Delhi High Court and the Madras High Court) have specialised IP divisions where the judges therein deal exclusively with IP cases. Further, although some judges may be techni- cally qualified, this is not a necessity, and there will also be judges without any technical back- ground. The parties do not get to choose before which judge the matter is placed. However, the plaintiff can, subject to statutory provisions, choose the jurisdiction for initiating the suit. 5.3 Settling the Case The Commercial Courts Act provides for man- datory pre-suit mediation, which can only be exempted if urgent interim relief is sought. How- ever, even after the initiation of the suit, parties can seek referral to mediation. Alternatively, the parties could resolve their dispute and, subject to the terms of their settlement, file applications under Order 23, Rule 1 of the CPC (for with- drawal of the suit) or Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC (for settlement). The latter would allow for the settlement to be recorded in the order of the court itself. 5.4 Other Court Proceedings Courts in India have clarified that parallel pro- ceedings in another jurisdiction alone do not
justify staying the current proceedings. The case of InterDigital Technology Corporation and Others v Xiaomi Corporation and Others, 2021:DHC:1493 highlighted that overlapping issues between Indian and Wuhan courts do not warrant anti-suit injunctions or stays based solely on potential conflicting orders. The principle established in various judgments emphasises that anti-suit injunctions should only be considered when foreign proceedings are oppressive or vexatious. The courts have further clarified that the mere existence of an anti-suit injunction from a foreign court does not auto- matically influence Indian proceedings, which must be assessed on their own merits. Although not statutorily recognised, the influence of other proceedings, especially concerning validity chal- lenges, is significant – in particular for interim relief. If a patent’s validity is challenged in a parallel jurisdiction, it could impact on current infringement cases to the extent that the court may take such proceedings into account. This would not, however, stay proceedings. As stated in 1.5 Rights and Obligations of Own- ers of Intellectual Property Rights , the reliefs provided for a patentee are enshrined in Section 108 of the Act, and are a permanent injunction and, at the option of the patentee, damages or an account of profits. During the pendency of the proceedings, the patentee can also seek interim relief by way of interim injunction and monetary deposits. Once infringement is established, an injunction must follow. The quantum of damages and/or account of profits depends on the evidence of 6. Remedies 6.1 Remedies for the Patentee
237 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook