{"id":24586,"date":"2026-05-19T13:34:57","date_gmt":"2026-05-19T13:34:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=24586"},"modified":"2026-05-19T13:38:20","modified_gmt":"2026-05-19T13:38:20","slug":"patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/","title":{"rendered":"Patent Holder\u2019s Right to Full Trial Despite Revocation Orders"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgment delivered by the <strong><a href=\"\/lawyers\/bombay.htm\">High Court of Judicature at Bombay<\/a><\/strong> in <em>Bharat Bhogilal Patel v. TVS Electronics Ltd.<\/em> deals with the legal effect of patent revocation proceedings, continuation of patent rights during pending litigation, and the limited scope of summary dismissal under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in commercial intellectual property disputes.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_83 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Factual_And_Procedural_Background\" >Factual And Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Revocation_Proceedings_Before_IPAB\" >Revocation Proceedings Before IPAB<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Bombay_High_Court_Order\" >Bombay High Court Order<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Applications_For_Summary_Dismissal\" >Applications For Summary Dismissal<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Dispute_Before_The_Court\" >Dispute Before The Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Arguments_By_The_Defendants\" >Arguments By The Defendants<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Arguments_By_The_Plaintiff\" >Arguments By The Plaintiff<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Court_Findings_on_Derivative_Revocation_Orders\" >Court Findings on Derivative Revocation Orders<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Reliance_on_Badrinath_v_Government_of_Tamil_Nadu\" >Reliance on Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Conduct_of_the_Patent_Office\" >Conduct of the Patent Office<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Section_117D2_of_the_Patents_Act_1970\" >Section 117D(2) of the Patents Act, 1970<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Summary_Judgment_Under_Order_XIII-A_CPC\" >Summary Judgment Under Order XIII-A CPC<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Substantial_Issues_Identified_by_the_Court\" >Substantial Issues Identified by the Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Court_Criticism_of_Delay_Tactics\" >Court Criticism of Delay Tactics<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Rejection_of_Plaint_Under_Order_VII_Rule_11_CPC\" >Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\" >Point of Law Settled in the Case<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Foundational_Revocation_Order_and_Its_Effect\" >Foundational Revocation Order and Its Effect<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Continued_Recognition_of_Patents\" >Continued Recognition of Patents<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Scope_of_Order_XIII-A_CPC\" >Scope of Order XIII-A CPC<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Importance_of_Full_Trial_in_Patent_Disputes\" >Importance of Full Trial in Patent Disputes<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-holders-right-to-full-trial-despite-revocation-orders\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>The Court was called upon to decide whether patent infringement suits could be summarily dismissed merely because certain revocation orders had been passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), even though the foundational revocation order had already been set aside and the patents continued to remain \u201cin force\u201d in the official patent register.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court examined the interplay between:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Revocation proceedings<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Stay orders passed by constitutional courts<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The conduct of the Patent Office<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Procedural provisions governing commercial suits<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgment assumes significance because it protects the principle that disputed and complex questions concerning subsistence of patent rights must ordinarily proceed to trial rather than being decided summarily at an interlocutory stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court also clarified that consequential administrative or quasi-judicial orders may collapse once the foundational order upon which they depend is set aside.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"factual-and-procedural-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_And_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual And Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The plaintiff, Bharat Bhogilal Patel, was the proprietor of two patents granted in the year 2003 relating to laser marking and engraving technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Patent Details<\/th><th>Description<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Patent 1<\/td><td>\u201cImproved laser marking and engraving machine\u201d<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Patent 2<\/td><td>\u201cProcess of manufacturing engraved design articles on metals or non-metals\u201d<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>The plaintiff instituted multiple commercial patent infringement suits against various defendants alleging unauthorized use of the patented technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"revocation-proceedings-before-ipab\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Revocation_Proceedings_Before_IPAB\"><\/span>Revocation Proceedings Before IPAB<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>After grant of the patents, several revocation applications were filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>One such application filed by Aditi Manufacturing Company resulted in an IPAB order dated 12 June 2012 revoking both patents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The plaintiff challenged this revocation order before the Madras High Court, which on 19 November 2012 stayed the operation of the revocation order. The stay continued from time to time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Subsequently, the IPAB passed additional revocation orders dated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>14 March 2013<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>7 March 2014<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>These orders arose in connected proceedings filed by other parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"bombay-high-court-order\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Bombay_High_Court_Order\"><\/span>Bombay High Court Order<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Madras High Court later disposed of the writ petitions on jurisdictional grounds while continuing interim protection and granting liberty to approach the Bombay High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Thereafter, the Bombay High Court by order dated 3 September 2015 set aside the original IPAB revocation order dated 12 June 2012 and remanded the matter back to the IPAB for fresh consideration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Meanwhile:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The plaintiff continued paying renewal fees for the patents<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Controller of Patents continued to reflect both patents as \u201cin force\u201d in the electronic register of patents<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"applications-for-summary-dismissal\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Applications_For_Summary_Dismissal\"><\/span>Applications For Summary Dismissal<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The defendants thereafter moved applications under:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Order XIII-A CPC seeking summary dismissal of the patent infringement suits<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The principal argument advanced by the defendants was that the subsequent revocation orders of 2013 and 2014 remained unchallenged and independently revoked the patents, thereby destroying the plaintiff\u2019s cause of action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"dispute-before-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute_Before_The_Court\"><\/span>Dispute Before The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The central dispute before the Court was whether the subsequent revocation orders passed by the IPAB in 2013 and 2014 had an independent legal existence or whether they were merely consequential to the original revocation order dated 12 June 2012 which had already been set aside by the Bombay High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"arguments-by-the-defendants\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Arguments_By_The_Defendants\"><\/span>Arguments By The Defendants<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The defendants argued that since the later revocation orders were never separately challenged by the plaintiff, the patents stood independently revoked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to the defendants:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>A patent infringement suit cannot survive if the patent itself has ceased to exist<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The plaintiff had suppressed material facts by not specifically disclosing the later revocation orders in the plaint<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The plaintiff attempted to create an artificial cause of action through clever drafting<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Reliance was placed upon the following Supreme Court decisions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><em>Anita International v. Tungabhadra Sugar Works Mazdoor Sangh<\/em>, (2016) 9 SCC 44<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia v. Bombay Environmental Action Group<\/em>, (2011) 3 SCC 363<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali<\/em>, (2020) 7 SCC 366<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal<\/em>, (1977) 4 SCC 467<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"arguments-by-the-plaintiff\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Arguments_By_The_Plaintiff\"><\/span>Arguments By The Plaintiff<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that the later revocation orders were entirely dependent upon the first revocation order of 2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to the plaintiff:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The foundational order had been stayed and later set aside<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The subsequent orders automatically lost their legal foundation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Patent Office continuously treated the patents as subsisting<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Renewal fees were accepted regularly<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The patents continued to remain \u201cin force\u201d in the official register<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court decision in <em>Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu<\/em>, (2000) 8 SCC 395, dealing with the doctrine of consequential orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reasoning-and-analysis-of-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court found that the later orders expressly stated that they were being passed \u201cin view of\u201d the earlier revocation order dated 12 June 2012. The Court observed that although the second order briefly referred to lack of novelty and inventive step, it contained no independent reasoning or analysis supporting those findings. The later revocation orders were therefore not independent adjudications but were clearly derivative and consequential in nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"court-findings-on-derivative-revocation-orders\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Court_Findings_on_Derivative_Revocation_Orders\"><\/span>Court Findings on Derivative Revocation Orders<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The later revocation orders were passed \u201cin view of\u201d the earlier order dated 12 June 2012.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The second order lacked independent reasoning and detailed analysis.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Court treated the subsequent revocation orders as derivative and consequential.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court relied significantly upon the Supreme Court judgment in <em>Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu<\/em>, (2000) 8 SCC 395. In Badrinath, the Supreme Court had held that when a foundational order is set aside by a superior authority, all consequential proceedings and actions flowing from that order also collapse automatically. Applying this principle, Justice Doctor held that once the original revocation order dated 12 June 2012 had been set aside by the Bombay High Court on 3 September 2015, the subsequent revocation orders based upon it also became vulnerable and ineffective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reliance-on-badrinath-v-government-of-tamil-nadu\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reliance_on_Badrinath_v_Government_of_Tamil_Nadu\"><\/span>Reliance on Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Aspect<\/th><th>Court Observation<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Supreme Court Precedent<\/td><td><em>Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu<\/em>, (2000) 8 SCC 395<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Legal Principle<\/td><td>If a foundational order is set aside, all consequential actions collapse automatically.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Application in Present Case<\/td><td>Setting aside the original revocation order weakened the later consequential revocation orders.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Another significant aspect considered by the Court was the conduct of the Patent Office. The Court observed that despite the later revocation orders, the Controller of Patents had continued accepting renewal fees and maintaining the patents as subsisting in the e-register. Official communications issued by the Patent Office to customs authorities also recognized the patents as valid and enforceable. The Court held that these circumstances strongly indicated that the subsequent revocation orders had never actually been implemented or given effect to by the statutory authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"conduct-of-the-patent-office\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conduct_of_the_Patent_Office\"><\/span>Conduct of the Patent Office<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Patent Office continued accepting renewal fees.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The patents remained active in the official e-register.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Communications to customs authorities recognized the patents as valid.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Court inferred that the later revocation orders were never effectively implemented.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court also referred to Section 117D(2) of the Patents Act, 1970, under which revocation orders passed by the IPAB were required to be communicated to the Controller. The continued existence of the patents in the official register suggested that the revocation orders were either not implemented or stood suspended due to the continuing effect of judicial stay orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"section-117d2-of-the-patents-act-1970\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_117D2_of_the_Patents_Act_1970\"><\/span>Section 117D(2) of the Patents Act, 1970<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Provision<\/th><th>Interpretation by the Court<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Section 117D(2)<\/td><td>Revocation orders passed by the IPAB must be communicated to the Controller.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Effect on Present Case<\/td><td>The patents remaining on the register suggested non-implementation or suspension of the revocation orders.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>While considering the defendants\u2019 plea for summary dismissal under Order XIII-A CPC, the Court reiterated that summary judgment can only be granted where there is no real prospect of success and no compelling reason for trial. The Court clarified that the word \u201creal\u201d excludes fanciful or completely hopeless claims, but where substantial and triable questions arise, the matter must proceed to evidence. Court identified several substantial issues requiring adjudication, including whether the later revocation orders were independent or consequential, whether the setting aside of the original revocation order nullified the later orders, and what legal effect flowed from continued renewal and recognition of the patents by the Patent Office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"summary-judgment-under-order-xiii-a-cpc\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Summary_Judgment_Under_Order_XIII-A_CPC\"><\/span>Summary Judgment Under Order XIII-A CPC<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Summary judgment applies only when there is no real prospect of success.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cReal\u201d excludes fanciful or hopeless claims.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Substantial and triable issues require a full trial and evidence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"substantial-issues-identified-by-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Substantial_Issues_Identified_by_the_Court\"><\/span>Substantial Issues Identified by the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Whether the later revocation orders were independent or consequential.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether setting aside the original revocation order nullified the later orders.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>What legal effect followed from continued renewal and recognition of the patents by the Patent Office.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court further criticized the misuse of Order XIII-A CPC by the defendants. It noted that although the summary dismissal applications were filed in 2019, the defendants had allowed them to remain pending for several years. According to the Court, the conduct of the defendants appeared aimed at delaying the progress of commercial patent suits rather than achieving expeditious adjudication, which is the true object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"court-criticism-of-delay-tactics\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Court_Criticism_of_Delay_Tactics\"><\/span>Court Criticism of Delay Tactics<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The defendants filed summary dismissal applications in 2019.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The applications remained pending for several years.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Court viewed the conduct as an attempt to delay commercial patent litigation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Court emphasized the objective of speedy adjudication under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>On the question of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court reiterated the settled legal principle that only the averments contained in the plaint can be examined at that stage. The Court held that the defendants were effectively asking the Court to adjudicate disputed factual and legal questions by relying on external materials and rival interpretations. Such an exercise was beyond the limited jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court therefore refused to reject the plaint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"rejection-of-plaint-under-order-vii-rule-11-cpc\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Rejection_of_Plaint_Under_Order_VII_Rule_11_CPC\"><\/span>Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Issue<\/th><th>Court Finding<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC<\/td><td>Only averments in the plaint can be examined.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Defendants\u2019 Argument<\/td><td>Relied on disputed facts, external materials, and rival interpretations.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Final Decision<\/td><td>The Court refused to reject the plaint.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"final-decision-of-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Bombay High Court dismissed all the Notices of Motion filed by the defendants under Order XIII-A CPC as well as the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court held that the plaintiff had a real prospect of success and that several important triable issues required full adjudication through evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000 upon the defendants and directed that the commercial patent suits proceed to trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court also observed that misuse of summary dismissal provisions in commercial disputes deserved discouragement through imposition of realistic costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"point-of-law-settled-in-the-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled in the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgment settles important legal principles concerning patent revocation and commercial litigation procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"foundational-revocation-order-and-its-effect\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Foundational_Revocation_Order_and_Its_Effect\"><\/span>Foundational Revocation Order and Its Effect<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court clarified that consequential revocation orders based entirely upon an earlier foundational order may lose their legal effect once the foundational order is set aside.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Merely subsequent revocation order does not disentitle the plaintiff&#8217;s right of trial, in case first revocation order is not final.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"continued-recognition-of-patents\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Continued_Recognition_of_Patents\"><\/span>Continued Recognition of Patents<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The decision also emphasizes that continued recognition of patents by statutory authorities and maintenance of patents as \u201cin force\u201d may create substantial triable issues preventing summary dismissal of infringement suits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"scope-of-order-xiii-a-cpc\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Scope_of_Order_XIII-A_CPC\"><\/span>Scope of Order XIII-A CPC<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court further reaffirmed that Order XIII-A CPC cannot be used to short-circuit complex patent disputes involving disputed facts and unresolved legal questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Summary dismissal is permissible only where the claim is completely devoid of merit and incapable of succeeding.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be converted into mini trials requiring examination of disputed external material.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"importance-of-full-trial-in-patent-disputes\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Importance_of_Full_Trial_in_Patent_Disputes\"><\/span>Importance of Full Trial in Patent Disputes<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgment therefore strengthens procedural safeguards in commercial intellectual property litigation and reinforces the principle that complicated questions concerning patent validity and enforceability ordinarily deserve full trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Case Title<\/th><td>Bharat Bhogilal Patel v. TVS Electronics Ltd. and Connected Matters<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Date of Order<\/th><td>7 May 2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Case Numbers<\/th><td>Notice of Motion CD No. 820 of 2018, Notice of Motion CD No. 1604 of 2019 in Commercial IP Suit No. 359 of 2017 along with connected matters<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Neutral Citation<\/th><td>2026:BHC-OS:12044<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Court<\/th><td>High Court of Judicature at Bombay<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Hon\u2019ble Judge<\/th><td>Justice Arif S. Doctor<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Disclaimer:&nbsp;<\/strong>Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<br><br><strong>Written By:&nbsp;Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, <\/strong>IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<br>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction The judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Bharat Bhogilal Patel v. TVS Electronics Ltd. deals with the legal effect of patent revocation proceedings, continuation of patent rights during pending litigation, and the limited scope of summary dismissal under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in commercial<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":24585,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[5149,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-24586","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-intellectual-property","8":"tag-intellectual-property","9":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/155455.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24586","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24586"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24586\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24709,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24586\/revisions\/24709"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/24585"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24586"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24586"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24586"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}