Back
2023 Supreme(AP) 1220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
Broadcom Inc. - Appellant
Versus
Txasldpc Inc. - Respondent
Original Petition No. 1 of 2023
Decided On : 13-12-2023
O.Manohar Reddy, Advocate, Ashok Srivastava, Advocate, D.Narendra Nayak, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of India to extend cooperation in civil litigations and comply with directions from foreign countries, as per the provisions of the Hague Convention and Sec. 78 read with Order XXVI Rules 19 to 22 CPC.
Headnote:
Sec. 78 - Appointment of Commissioner for Collection of Evidence - Order XXVI Rules 19 to 22 and Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - The Hague Convention - Article 27 of the Hague Convention - Sec. 78 CPC read with Order XXVI Rules 19 to 22 CPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought the appointment of a Commissioner to collect evidence and record testimony from respondent No.2 in India, as per the Letter of Request of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, for a civil proceeding involving copyright and patent infringement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that India, being a signatory to the Hague Convention, is obligated to extend cooperation in civil litigations and comply with directions from foreign countries. The Court relied on Sec. 78 read with Order XXVI Rules 19 to 22 CPC to appoint the Principal District Judge as Commissioner for the purposes mentioned in the Letter of Request.
Issues: The main issue was the appointment of a Commissioner to address respondent No.2 for collection of evidence and testimony as per the Letter of Request from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Hague Convention and Sec. 78 read with Order XXVI Rules 19 to 22 CPC, which prescribe the procedure for the appointment of a Commissioner to record evidence based on a Letter of Request from a foreign Court.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, appointing the Principal District Judge as Commissioner for the purposes mentioned in the Letter of Request. The Commissioner was directed to execute the commission warrant and forward the entire report to the High Court along with the deposition of respondent No.2 and the documents received and marked, to be transmitted to the foreign Court along with the Letter of Request. The petitioners were directed to bear the necessary expenses for execution of the warrant.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Sec. 78 read with Order XXVI Rules 19 to 22 and Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking the following prayer:
"a) to appoint a Commissioner to address respondent No.2 for collection of evidence, documents as well as for obtaining and recording testimony from respondent No.2 in terms of Letter of Request of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware;
(b) to direct the Commissioner to execute the Commission in terms of the Letter of Request by requiring the written deposition and collection of evidence, documents mentioned in Exhibits A, B and 3 of the Notice of Subpoena accompanying the Letter of Request from respondent No.2 as expeditiously as possible;
c) to direct the Commissioner to direct to execute the abovementioned actions in paragraph (b) in the presence of the advocates of the petitioners in India and the attorneys of the petitioners before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware;
(d) to allow the advocates of the petitioners in India the opportunity to examine or cross-examine respondent No.2;
(e) to allow the attorneys of the petitioners before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to attend, observe and participate in the examination of respondent No.2;
(f) to direct the Commissioner to collect all the documentary evidence and the devices mentioned in Exhibit A of the Notice of Subpoena accompanying the Letter of Request/Letters Rogatory, and also for obtaining and recording the testimony and deposition of respondent No.2;
(g) to return the Commission of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware with an advanced copy to the counsel for the petitioners as expeditiously as possible;
(h) to provide photocopies of the evidence (documentary and oral testimony) collected, to the advocates of the petitioners in India;
2. It is the case of the petitioners in the O.P. that the petitioners are defendants in civil proceedings with Case No.C.A.No.18-1966-SB before the Delaware Court filed by respondent No.1, for copyright and patent infringement of its Copyright Registrations and US patents, allegedly claiming priority from US provisional application bearing No.60/915, 320 assigned by Dr.Gunnam. The petitioners found invalidating prior art that defeats patent claims of respondent No.1 and identified that prior art in January, 2022. Respondent No.1 provided no response for many months and resisted providing complete contentions as to the earliest alleged date of invention of respondent No.1. On 1/12/2022, Dr.Gunnam produced new source code files that purportedly show a 2005 invention date by Dr.Gunnam. On 19/12/2022, Dr.Gunnam testified under oath that he had lost these source code files but was able to recover them from 2nd respondent herein in November, 2022, after recalling that he had purportedly sent them to 2nd respondent in conjunction with a research paper some years back. In the light of the new information presented during the fact discovery in the aforesaid case before the Delaware Court on 19/12/2022, the petitioners immediately pursued discovery in India and filed an application before the Delaware Court to issue a subpoena in the name of 2nd respondent, to request 2nd respondent to testify and produce all documents, things and devices for inspection as relevant in the said civil proceeding. The Delaware Court granted the request on 11/1/2023 under the Hague Convention and accordingly sent a Letter of Request/Letters Rogatory to the Central Authority of India (Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs) requesting international judicial assistance through the Hague Convention, to which India is a signatory. The authority received the Letter of Request/Letters Rogatory and forwarded the same to the District Court, Vizianagaram and thereafter it was duly served on 2nd respondent. Inspite of being aware of issuance of, and served with copy of, the Letter
