Disposed

M/S Lavos Performance v. M/S Yashram Lifestyle Brands Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2024WP/13950/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against dismissal of an application to stay a patent infringement suit pending revocation proceedings. Court disposed of the petition directing trial on infringement evidence, but no final hearing until disposal of the pending revocation application.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Lavos Performance Vs M/S Yashram Lifestyle… — Intellectual Property | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:8716 WP No. 13950 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 13950 OF 2021 (IPR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S LAVOS PERFORMANCE, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP, HAVING ITS ADDRESS AT SHED NO. 26-27, SIDCO, MUDLIPALYAM, TIRUPUR, TAMIL NADU - 641606, REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR, MRS. LAVANYA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI V PRIYA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

M/S YASHRAM LIFESTYLE BRANDS PVT LTD., A COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 139/2, HOSUR ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560095, REP. BY IS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MS. DEEPA A KUMAR.

¶13

MS. DEEPA A KUMAR, W/O. MR. ANIL KUMAR, MAJOR BY AGE, HAVING OFFICE AT 139/2, HOSUR ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095.

¶14

MOD FASHIONS, HAVING ITS ADDRESS AT NO. 116, 10^TH MAIN ROAD, SECTOR 6, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 102, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SUNIL KUMAR.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRANAV KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2, R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:8716 WP No. 13950 of 2021

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 19.04.2021 VIDE ANNX-A PASSED BY THE XVIII ADDL CITY CIVIL JDUGE, BANGALORE (CCH.NO.10) ON I.A.NO.IV IN O.S.NO.5320/2019 OR ALTERNATIVELY, GRANT LIBERTY TO THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO.1, TO RAISE A COUNTER-CLAIM SEEKING REVOCATION OF PATENT IN O.S.NO.5320/2019 BY WITHDRAWING THE REVOCATION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE IPAB.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The suit is pending before the Trial Court on the premise that the petitioner before this Court is infringing the patent rights granted in favour of the present respondent No.1. In the said suit, the present petitioner filed an application under Section 94(e) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') to stay the proceeding on the premise that the application is pending before the competent authority for revocation of patent said to have been granted in

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:8716 WP No. 13950 of 2021

¶24

favour of the present respondent No.2. The Trial Court has dismissed the said application on the premise that the application is not maintainable. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that Section 94(e) of the Code enables the Court to stay the proceeding and Trial Court ought to have stayed the proceedings as Trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the dispute where the patent is questioned by the defendant. It is also submitted that an application is filed before the competent authority where the present petitioner has filed an application for revocation of patent said to have been granted in favour of the plaintiff No.2. It is further submitted that since the matter is likely to be concluded before the Authority, the Trial Court ought to have stayed the proceeding, other wise the recording of evidence would be a futile exercise.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:8716 WP No. 13950 of 2021

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the suit for injunction on the ground of infringement of patent right for the plaintiff cannot be stayed as there is no such provision under the Patent Act, 1970. It is also his submission that merely because an application is said to be pending before the Authority for revocation of patent cannot be a ground to stay where plaintiff is complaining violation of patent right.

¶29

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar.

¶30

Admittedly, an application for revocation of patent said to have been granted in favour of the plaintiff No.2 is pending consideration before the competent authority. This Court is of the view that since the suit is filed alleging infringement of plaintiff's patent right, the evidence relating to alleged infringement can be recorded and as the application for revocation

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:8716 WP No. 13950 of 2021

¶32

of patent is pending, there shall not be any recording of evidence in respect of the matter concerning the validity of the patent and it is further made clear that the final arguments on the merits of the suit shall commence only after disposal of the application which is pending for revocation of patent.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture would submit that the petitioner would not press the prayer-B in the writ petition. Submission is placed on record.

¶34

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent that his application for temporary injunction is pending consideration and the same has to be considered.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the application is not maintainable as the Court has no jurisdiction to look into the validity of the

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:8716 WP No. 13950 of 2021

¶37

patent which is one of the considerations for granting or refusing the injunction.

¶38

Hence, the following;-

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

(a) The Trial Court shall proceed with the trial of the suit to record evidence relating to alleged infringement of plaintiff's patent rights under the registered patent.

¶41

(b) The final hearing shall not take place until the disposal of the pending application before the competent Authority.

¶42

(c) The Trial Court shall consider the application on merits and this Court has not expressed anything on the maintainability or otherwise of the interim application.

¶43

All contentions of both the parties on the interim application are kept open.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:8716 WP No. 13950 of 2021

¶46

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

CHS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

M/S Lavos Performance v. M/S Yashram Lifestyle Brands Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Lavos Performance v. M/S Yashram Lifestyle Brands Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr K v Srikumar, Aged About 49 Years Vs M/S Citi Green Farms (P) Ltd.

Masrur Ali Khan Vs Mrs. Kauser Sayeed

Mrs. H.M.Susheela Vs Mr.H.S.Shyma Sundar

Madesh N Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Andali Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shanthamma Vs Sri N Ramachandra