Geobrugg AG Vs Techfab (India) Industries Limited

High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Application for Rejection of Plaint in Patent Infringement Suit by Geobrugg AG Against Techfab (India) Industries Limited

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, in OMP No. 343 of 2025 in Civil Suit No. 23 of 2024, decided on May 6, 2026 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, dismissed the defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint filed by Swiss company Geobrugg AG.

Geobrugg AG, owner of Indian Patents IN 448244 and IN 454374 relating to high-tensile steel wire mesh (TECCO) for protection against rockfall and natural hazards, sued Techfab (India) Industries Limited for patent infringement. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s “High Tensile Steel Rhomboidal Wire Mesh” infringes its patents, based on samples procured from a third party (Urbtech) in Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, supported by expert evidence.

The defendant sought rejection of the plaint on grounds including lack of cause of action, non-joinder of necessary party (Urbtech), failure to exhaust pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and improper form.

Justice Sandeep Sharma held that non-joinder of a party is not a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The court found that the plaint disclosed a clear cause of action, the suit was not barred by law, and the defendant’s product was available for sale in Himachal Pradesh (including via IndiaMart), conferring territorial jurisdiction. Pre-institution mediation was not mandatory as the suit contemplated urgent interim relief. The application was accordingly dismissed, allowing the patent infringement suit to proceed.

Disclaimer: Do not treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#GeobruggAGvTechfab, #PatentInfringement, #Order7Rule11CPC, #HimachalPradeshHighCourt, #CommercialCourtsAct, #PreInstitutionMediation, #IPLitigationIndia, #PatentSuit, #TechfabIndia, #HighCourtJudgment, #IPUpdate, #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, #IPAdjutor

=====

Suggested SEO Titles

Patent Infringement Suit Cannot Be Rejected for Non-Joinder of Distributor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Explains Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Urgent Interim Relief in Patent Infringement Cases Exempts Mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Geobrugg AG v. Techfab India Industries Ltd.: Detailed Analysis of Patent Infringement, Territorial Jurisdiction and Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Himachal Pradesh High Court on Patent Infringement and Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Continuous Intellectual Property Infringement Creates Urgent Cause of Action: Important Ruling by Himachal Pradesh High Court

Territorial Jurisdiction in Patent Infringement Cases Explained: Geobrugg AG v. Techfab India Industries Limited

---

Geobrugg AG v. Techfab (India) Industries Limited: Detailed Analytical Article

Introduction

The decision delivered by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Geobrugg AG v. Techfab (India) Industries Limited is an important ruling dealing with rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, territorial jurisdiction in patent infringement matters, non-joinder of parties, and the requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The judgment is significant because it clarifies that courts must examine only the plaint and documents filed by the plaintiff while deciding an application for rejection of plaint and should not consider the defence of the opposite party at that stage. The Court also explained that in intellectual property disputes involving continuing infringement, the requirement of urgent interim relief can exempt a plaintiff from mandatory pre-institution mediation. The ruling further discusses how cause of action can arise in a state where infringing goods are delivered and accepted, thereby conferring territorial jurisdiction upon that court.

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff, Geobrugg AG, is a Swiss company engaged in manufacturing high-tensile steel wire mesh systems used for protection against rockfalls, landslides, avalanches, and similar natural hazards. The company claimed ownership over Indian Patent Nos. 448244 and 454374. These patents related to specialized high-tensile wire mesh technology marketed under the trade name “TECCO”.

The defendant, Techfab (India) Industries Limited, was alleged to be manufacturing and selling a competing wire mesh product called “High Tensile Steel Rhomboidal Wire Mesh”, which according to the plaintiff infringed the plaintiff’s patents.

The plaintiff claimed that in May 2024 it became aware that the defendant’s allegedly infringing product had been sold to Urbtech Engineering Construction Private Limited situated in Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Samples of the product were obtained and tested. Based upon technical examination and expert analysis, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant’s product contained all essential features covered under Claim 1 of both suit patents.

Consequently, the plaintiff instituted a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction under Section 108 of the Patents Act along with interim relief restraining the defendant from manufacturing and selling the infringing product.

Before the suit could proceed substantially, the defendant filed an application under Order I Rule 9, Order I Rule 13, Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.

Dispute Before the Court

The defendant mainly raised four objections.

First, it was argued that the plaint disclosed no valid cause of action and was therefore liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Second, the defendant contended that the plaintiff had failed to comply with mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. According to the defendant, there was no real urgency because the plaintiff had knowledge of the alleged infringement since May 2024 and yet delayed filing the suit.

Third, it was argued that Urbtech Engineering Construction Private Limited, from whom the plaintiff allegedly obtained the product sample, was a necessary party to the proceedings. Since Urbtech was not impleaded, the suit was said to be defective and liable to rejection.

Fourth, the defendant challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Himachal Pradesh High Court by arguing that the contract of sale was completed outside Himachal Pradesh. According to the defendant, the goods were delivered to a common carrier in Uttarakhand and payment was also made outside Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, no cause of action arose within Himachal Pradesh.

The plaintiff opposed all these objections and argued that the suit clearly disclosed a cause of action for patent infringement, that urgent interim relief was being sought against continuing infringement, that Urbtech was not a necessary party, and that part of the cause of action arose within Himachal Pradesh because the infringing goods were delivered and accepted there.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

Justice Sandeep Sharma began by extensively discussing the scope and object of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court reproduced the provision and observed that rejection of plaint is a drastic power which can only be exercised where the conditions specifically mentioned in the provision are satisfied.

The Court emphasized that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must examine only the averments contained in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. The defence of the defendant or allegations in the written statement are irrelevant at that stage.

For this principle, the Court relied heavily upon the Supreme Court judgment in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali (Gajra), reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366, where the Supreme Court explained that the object of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is to terminate sham or vexatious litigation at the threshold. The Supreme Court had held that courts must determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and whether the suit is barred by law solely from the plaint and accompanying documents.

The Court also referred to Ramisetty Venkanna v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb, Civil Appeal No. 27170 of 2023 decided on 28 April 2023, where the Supreme Court reiterated that courts must “nip in the bud” suits based on illusory causes of action or clever drafting intended to avoid limitation or legal bars.

Further reliance was placed on classic precedents including T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467 : AIR 1977 SC 2421, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 137 : AIR 2004 SC 1801 and Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 174, all emphasizing that meaningless and vexatious litigation should not consume judicial time.

The Court also noticed the observations made in Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 364 and Raj Narain Sarin v. Laxmi Devi, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 501, where the Supreme Court cautioned against clever drafting adopted to circumvent limitation or statutory bars.

Reference was also made to Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties, reported in (2020) 6 SCC 557, where the Supreme Court held that only plaint averments are relevant while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

After discussing the legal framework, the Court examined whether the plaint in the present case disclosed a cause of action. The Court noted that the plaintiff had specifically pleaded ownership of valid patents, sale of infringing products by the defendant, procurement of product samples, technical testing, and expert evidence showing infringement. Therefore, the plaint clearly disclosed a cause of action and could not be rejected at the threshold.

On the issue of non-joinder of Urbtech, the Court held that non-joinder or misjoinder of parties is not a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court observed that under Order I Rule 9 CPC, no suit shall fail merely because of non-joinder of parties.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 551 : AIR 2007 SC 1247, where it was categorically held that defects relating to misjoinder or non-joinder are procedural in nature and do not render the suit barred by law.

The Court further accepted the plaintiff’s argument that Urbtech was merely a purchaser or distributor and no substantive relief had been sought against it. Since the plaintiff alleged infringement against the manufacturer itself, namely the defendant company, Urbtech was not a necessary party.

On the issue of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, the Court noted that the statutory requirement does not apply where the suit contemplates urgent interim relief.

The Court relied upon the recent Supreme Court judgment in Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2278. In that case, the Supreme Court had held that in cases involving continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, urgency is inherent because each continuing act of infringement causes fresh harm and continuing damage to goodwill and market reputation.

The Supreme Court had also clarified that mere delay in filing a suit does not destroy urgency where infringement is continuing in nature. Justice Sandeep Sharma applied this reasoning and held that the plaintiff’s plea for urgent interim injunction against continuing patent infringement was genuine and not a camouflage to bypass mediation.

The Court therefore concluded that the suit was exempt from mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A.

The final major issue concerned territorial jurisdiction. The defendant argued that the sale transaction was completed in Uttarakhand when goods were handed over to the carrier and therefore Himachal Pradesh courts lacked jurisdiction.

The Court analyzed Sections 39 and 41 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Section 39 deals with delivery to carrier while Section 41 provides that a buyer is not deemed to have accepted goods unless he has had reasonable opportunity to examine them.

The defendant relied upon A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 163 : AIR 1989 SC 1239 and Escorts JCB Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 281 : AIR 2003 SC 1296 to argue that delivery to the carrier completed the sale transaction outside Himachal Pradesh.

However, the Court observed that the invoice itself stated that quality-related complaints could be raised within seven days from receipt at the consignee location. This showed that the contract was not treated as finally complete merely upon dispatch through the carrier.

To support this reasoning, the Court relied upon the Madras High Court judgment in Sorabji Hormusha Joshi and Co. v. V.M. Ismail, reported in AIR 1960 Mad 520 : 1959 SCC OnLine Mad 239, which explained the buyer’s right to inspect goods and held that acceptance occurs only after reasonable opportunity for examination.

The Court also referred to older authorities including Bragg v. Villa Nova, Peer Mohammad Rowther v. Dalooram Jayanarayan, Mithan Lal v. Suraj Parshad, Province of Madras v. Galia Kotwalla and Co. Ltd., Nagar Dass v. Vel Mohammed, In re Andrew Yule and Co., and Mahadev Ganga Prasad v. Gourishankar while discussing the law relating to acceptance and inspection of goods under the Sale of Goods Act.

Accordingly, the Himachal Pradesh High Court concluded that the sale transaction attained completion upon acceptance of goods in Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, part of the cause of action arose within Himachal Pradesh, conferring territorial jurisdiction upon the Court.

Final Decision of the Court

The High Court dismissed the defendant’s application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

The Court held that the plaint clearly disclosed a valid cause of action for patent infringement. Non-joinder of Urbtech was not a valid ground for rejection of plaint. The suit was not barred by Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act because the plaintiff was seeking urgent interim relief against continuing infringement. The Court further held that part of the cause of action arose within Himachal Pradesh, thereby conferring territorial jurisdiction upon the Court.

Accordingly, the commercial suit was permitted to proceed on merits.

Point of Law Settled in the Case

This judgment settles several important principles of commercial and intellectual property law. The decision reiterates that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, courts must examine only the plaint and documents filed by the plaintiff and not the defence raised by the defendant. The judgment clarifies that non-joinder or misjoinder of parties is not a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The ruling further establishes that continuing infringement of intellectual property rights inherently constitutes urgency and therefore suits seeking urgent interim injunctions are exempt from mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. The judgment also explains that in sale transactions involving delivery and subsequent inspection rights, territorial jurisdiction may arise at the place where goods are accepted after examination and not merely where they are dispatched to the carrier.

---

Case Details

Title: Geobrugg AG Vs Techfab (India) Industries Limited

Date of Order: 6 May 2026

Case Number: OMP No. 343 of 2025 in Civil Suit No. 23 of 2024

Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:15075

Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh

Hon’ble Judge: Justice Sandeep Sharma

---

Headnote

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a plaint in a patent infringement suit cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely on the ground of non-joinder of a distributor or purchaser. The Court further held that continuing intellectual property infringement constitutes sufficient urgency to exempt a plaintiff from mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court also ruled that territorial jurisdiction may arise at the place where goods are accepted after examination by the buyer, thereby permitting the patent infringement suit to continue before the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

---

SEO Tags: Patent Infringement, Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, Rejection of Plaint, Commercial Courts Act, Section 12A Commercial Courts Act, Pre Institution Mediation, Territorial Jurisdiction, Intellectual Property Rights, Patent Litigation India, Himachal Pradesh High Court, Geobrugg AG Case, Techfab India Industries, Patent Infringement Suit, Urgent Interim Relief, Non Joinder of Parties, Cause of Action, Commercial Suit, Patent Law India, Civil Procedure Code, Section 48 Patents Act, Sale of Goods Act, IP Litigation, Injunction in Patent Cases, Continuous Infringement, Commercial Courts, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

---

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

====