By Lucy Rana and B. Michael Shriney
Few procedural choices in patent litigation carry as much strategic weight as the one at the heart of this case. When a business is sued for infringing a patent it believes should never have been granted, how it mounts the challenge, by an independent revocation petition or by a counterclaim, shapes which court hears the dispute, how quickly, and at what cost. In a recent order, the Madras High Court confirmed that the Patents Act leaves that choice with the litigant, and that the choice cannot be narrowed by the opposing side.
The dispute
A patentee had sued for infringement before a District Court. The defendant did not file a counterclaim for revocation in that suit. Instead, it filed a separate, independent petition before the High Court seeking to revoke the patent, and applied to have the infringement suit transferred from the District Court to the High Court so that both could be heard together. The High Court ordered the transfer. The patentee then sought a review, arguing that because no counterclaim had been filed, the only available route to revocation was a counterclaim, and that transferring a suit in which no counterclaim existed was a material irregularity that wrongly ousted the District Court’s jurisdiction.
What the Court held
The Court dismissed the review. Its reasoning turned on the structure of Sections 64 and 104 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Section 64 entitles a person interested to seek revocation either by filing an independent revocation petition before the High Court, or by way of a counterclaim in a suit for infringement. The Court held that this is a statutory right of the litigant, and that it cannot be whittled down by forcing the litigant to proceed only by counterclaim. The choice of the mode of revocation belongs to the party seeking it.
Section 104 provides that an infringement suit is to be brought in a court no lower than the District Court, and its proviso directs that where a counterclaim for revocation is made in such a suit, the suit together with the counterclaim is to be transferred to the High Court. The reason, the Court explained, is that only the High Court has jurisdiction to decide the revocation of a patent; a District Court does not. On that logic, where a claim for revocation has been raised, the District Court is ousted of jurisdiction over that question and the suit must move to the High Court. The Court held that the power to transfer was available not only under the proviso to Section 104 but also under the Letters Patent applicable to it.
The Court distinguished the authorities the patentee relied on, in which transfer had been refused, on the basis that in those matters there had been no pleading of revocation at all. It also addressed the Supreme Court authority on the point: where a defendant has in fact filed a counterclaim for revocation, it cannot then pursue a separate revocation petition as well. That rule, the Court noted, operates where a counterclaim has been filed. It did not prevent a litigant who had chosen the independent-petition route from pursuing it, nor did it prevent the transfer of the pending suit to the High Court to be heard alongside that petition.
Why this matters
The order is a useful confirmation of a point that is easy to get wrong. A challenger is not confined to a counterclaim simply because it has been sued; it may bring an independent revocation petition before the High Court, and the infringement suit can then be drawn up to the High Court to be decided with it. That has immediate consequences. It affects which forum hears the whole dispute, the pace at which it moves, and the manner in which validity and infringement are decided together rather than in parallel tracks.
The choice is not free of risk. The settled position that a party which files a counterclaim for revocation cannot also run a separate petition means that the route a litigant selects can bind it. Selecting the wrong route, or raising revocation in the wrong form, can close off options or hand the opponent a jurisdictional argument. The right choice depends on the stage of the proceedings, where the suit was filed, the grounds of invalidity, and the litigant’s wider commercial objectives. These are precisely the questions on which experienced advice is decisive, and on which a misstep is difficult to undo.
Key Takeaways for Patent Litigants
- Section 64 preserves a litigant’s right to choose between an independent revocation petition and a counterclaim for revocation.
- The choice of procedure may determine the forum that ultimately decides the dispute.
- Patent validity and infringement are closely intertwined; resolving them before the same court can reduce the risk of inconsistent findings.
- Once a party elects one route, procedural consequences may follow, including restrictions on maintaining parallel revocation proceedings.Our Coverage on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7515710488115351552
Frequently Asked Questions
independent-revocation
On this ruling, yes. A person interested may seek revocation by an independent petition before the High Court or by a counterclaim in the infringement suit. Which route is right for you depends on where the suit was filed, its stage and your strategy, and the wrong choice can be hard to reverse, so take advice before you decide.
Both put the validity of the patent in issue, but they sit in different procedural settings and can affect forum, timing, cost and the relief available. The better route is a strategic question that turns on the specifics of your matter, which is why it should be assessed with counsel before any step is taken.
The settled position is that having filed a counterclaim, a party cannot also pursue a separate revocation petition on the same patent. The boundaries of that rule are nuanced and fact-sensitive, and getting them wrong can cost you the point, so this should not be navigated without advice.
Where a claim for revocation is made, the suit is liable to be transferred to the High Court, because only the High Court can decide revocation. How and when that happens depends on the form and timing of the revocation claim, and the consequences for your case deserve careful handling.
It is a considered order of the High Court on an important point, but patent litigation strategy is rarely settled by a single authority. The interaction of Sections 64 and 104, the election rule and the facts of your matter needs to be assessed case by case, and we would be glad to advise.
A revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act may be filed by a person interested in challenging the validity of a patent before the High Court. As reaffirmed by the Madras High Court, this remedy remains available even where a patent infringement suit has already been instituted against the challenger. The person challenging the patent may choose to seek revocation through an independent petition instead of raising a counterclaim in the infringement suit.
A revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act is filed before the High Court. In contrast, a counterclaim for revocation is raised by the defendant within a patent infringement suit. While the infringement suit may initially be filed before a District Court, a counterclaim for revocation brings the question of patent validity into issue, and the matter is then required to be dealt with by the High Court. The Madras High Court clarified that a litigant may choose either route to challenge the patent.
The decision confirms a choice that the Patents Act gives to the party challenging a patent, and underlines that the choice, once made, carries forward through the whole dispute. For any business weighing how to meet a patent it regards as invalid, the route it selects is a strategic decision with lasting consequences, and one worth getting right at the outset.
For more information on Patent Searches, Patent FTO search, Patent Prior Art Search, Patent Novelty search, Patent Landscape search, Patent Invalidation Search, Patent Invention Disclosure, Patent filing, Patent registration, Patent of Addition, Divisional Patent, PCT Patent filing, Convention Patent filing, National Phase Patent Filing, Patent Grant, Patent First Examination Report, Patent Objection Reply, Patent Hearing, Patent Pre grant Opposition, Patent Post Grant Opposition, Patent Publication, Patent Request for Examination, Patent Expedited Examination, Patent Renewal, Patent Annuity, Patent Maintenance , Patent Invalidation, Patent Cancellation, Patent Rectification, Patent Infringement, Patent Litigation, Patent Licensing, Patent Assignment, Patent Working Statement, etc. in India write to us at info@ssrana.com