Himachal Pradesh HC Refuses To Throw Out Swiss Company's Patent Suit Against Indian Wire Mesh Manufacturer

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused to throw out a patent infringement suit filed by Swiss company Geobrugg AG against Indian manufacturer Techfab (India) Industries Limited. The suit alleges that Techfab infringed its patented wire mesh technology used to protect against rockfalls, landslides, and avalanches.

Justice Sandeep Sharma rejected Techfab's plea seeking dismissal of the suit at the threshold. Techfab had argued that the case was filed in the wrong court, that the buyer of the product should also have been made a party, and that Geobrugg should have first gone through pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act.

Geobrugg told the court that it owns two Indian patents covering high-tensile steel wire mesh sold in India under the brand name “TECCO.” It alleged that Techfab was manufacturing and selling a similar product without authorisation.

According to Geobrugg, it discovered the alleged infringement in May 2024 after obtaining a sample of Techfab's wire mesh sold to Urbtech Engineering Construction Private Limited in Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. The company said expert testing showed the product matched claims covered by both patents. It then filed the commercial suit seeking a permanent injunction and other reliefs.

Techfab argued that Urbtech, which purchased the product, was a necessary party. It said the suit could not proceed without it.

Rejecting this objection, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria. It held that a suit cannot be defeated merely because a party has not been joined.

The Court found that Urbtech was not necessary for deciding whether Techfab had infringed Geobrugg's patents.

Techfab also argued that the suit should be dismissed because Geobrugg had not first exhausted pre-institution mediation.

The Court rejected that contention. It was noted that Geobrugg had sought urgent interim relief alleging continuing patent infringement.

The Court rejected Techfab's objection on pre-institution mediation, holding that Geobrugg's plea for urgent interim relief in a case alleging continuing patent infringement exempted it from first undergoing mediation.

On jurisdiction, Techfab argued that the sale transaction had been completed in Uttarakhand when the goods were handed over to a carrier. It said the Himachal Pradesh High Court, therefore, could not hear the case.

The Court disagreed. It held that a buyer is not deemed to have accepted goods until it has had a reasonable opportunity to inspect them.

Referring to the invoice placed on record, the Court noted that quality complaints could be raised within seven days of receipt at the consignee location in Kullu.

The Court therefore held that the transaction was completed in Himachal Pradesh. It said this gave the High Court territorial jurisdiction to hear the case.

The interim injunction application in the patent suit remains pending.