Himachal High Court Refuses to Reject Patent Infringement Suit Against Techfab
Shimla: In a significant order on intellectual property rights, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh has refused to reject a patent infringement suit filed by Swiss company Geobrugg AG against Techfab (India) Industries Limited over alleged copying of high-tensile steel wire mesh technology used for protection against landslides, rockfalls and avalanches.
Justice Sandeep Sharma dismissed Techfab’s plea seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, observing that non-joinder of parties and disputed facts cannot become grounds to throw out a suit at the threshold.
The court held that the suit filed by Geobrugg disclosed a clear cause of action and could not be termed “vexatious” or “illusory” at this stage.
Geobrugg, a Switzerland-based company operating in over 50 countries, claimed that Techfab was manufacturing and selling wire mesh products allegedly infringing its Indian patents numbered IN’244 and IN’374.
The patented technology is used globally for protection systems against natural hazards such as landslides, debris flow and rockfall.
According to the suit, Geobrugg became aware in May 2024 that Techfab was selling a product branded as “High Tensile Steel Rhomboidal Wire Mesh”. Samples allegedly purchased in Kullu were later tested by experts, who claimed the product matched the features protected under Geobrugg’s patents.
Techfab had argued that the suit deserved dismissal because Geobrugg failed to first exhaust mandatory pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act.
The company also contended that the alleged buyer, Urbtech Engineering Construction Pvt Ltd, was a necessary party and that Himachal Pradesh courts lacked territorial jurisdiction.
However, the High Court rejected these objections.
The court observed that pre-institution mediation is not mandatory where urgent interim relief is sought. Since the plaintiff alleged continuing patent infringement and sought an injunction to stop ongoing sales, the case qualified for urgent relief.
Relying on recent Supreme Court rulings, the High Court said continuing infringement of intellectual property rights creates recurring causes of action and urgency cannot be defeated merely because some time elapsed before filing the suit.
The court also ruled that non-joinder of Urbtech could not be a valid ground for rejection of the plaint.
It noted that the distributor was not a necessary party because the core allegations were against Techfab, which was accused of manufacturing and marketing the disputed product across India.
On territorial jurisdiction, the High Court held that part of the cause of action arose in Himachal Pradesh because the allegedly infringing product was delivered and accepted in Kullu.
The court observed that under the Sale of Goods Act, acceptance of goods is completed only after the buyer gets a reasonable opportunity to examine them.
The order is being seen as an important ruling in intellectual property litigation, especially for patent disputes involving alleged continuing infringement and interim injunctions.
