Bombay High Court Rejects TVS, Kalelkar Pleas To Dismiss Laser Marking Patent Suits; Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs

The Bombay High Court has refused to throw out patent infringement suits over laser marking and engraving technology filed by inventor Bharat Bhogilal Patel against TVS Electronics Limited and Kalelkar Surgicals Private Limited, holding that the dispute must go to trial.

The court also imposed ₹1 lakh costs on both.

“Several triable issues will arise, and thus, the question of a summary dismissal of the Suits at this stage does not arise,” Justice Arif S. Doctor said.

Patel's suits relate to two patents granted in 2003 for an “Improved laser marking and engraving machine” and a “Process of manufacturing engraved design articles on metals or non-metals.”

TVS and Kalelkar argued that Patel's suits were not maintainable because the Intellectual Property Appellate Board had revoked both patents in 2012, followed by two further revocation orders in 2013 and 2014 that Patel never challenged.

The court rejected that argument, finding that the later revocation orders were not independent but flowed entirely from the first revocation order, which had already been set aside by the Bombay High Court in 2015.

“Such a contention needs only to be stated to be rejected,” the court said.

Justice Doctor noted that the later orders expressly referred back to the first revocation order and did not contain independent reasoning that could sustain revocation on their own.

The court also accepted Patel's argument that the later revocation orders were never acted upon. It noted that the Controller of Patents continued accepting renewal fees and kept both patents marked as “in force” in the patent register.

The court noted that under Section 117D(2) of the Patents Act, revocation orders were required to be communicated to the Controller, and said that had clearly not happened.

The court also referred to an affidavit filed by the Controller of Patents before the Delhi High Court in separate proceedings involving Samsung India Electronics, which stated that the patents remained in force because of various stay orders passed by courts.

TVS's separate plea seeking rejection of the plaint was also dismissed, with the court holding that disputed factual issues could not be decided by looking beyond the plaint at the threshold stage.

“The entire basis of seeking rejection of the Plaint in the facts of the present case is to, in fact look beyond the Plaint and not at the Plaint itself,” the court said.

The court was sharply critical of TVS and Kalelkar's conduct, holding that the summary dismissal applications were used to delay, rather than expedite, the proceedings.

“The Defendants have clearly misused the provisions of Order XIII-A to defeat the scheme of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015,” the court said.

It further held that the applications appeared “calculated solely to obstruct and delay the expeditious adjudication” of the suits.

The court dismissed all pending applications and directed the defendants to pay ₹1 lakh within eight weeks, failing which 8% interest will apply. It granted a four-week stay on the costs order after the judgment.