The convenience of hearing at a particular location does not necessarily determine the venue of the litigation, and the principle of forum conveniens should be considered in determining the appropriate jurisdiction.

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

M/s. Aditi Manufacturing Company, the fourth respondent in the main writ petitions, seeks to assail the territorial jurisdiction of this Court invoked by the original writ petitioner Mr. Bharat Bhogilal Patel in filing the writ petitions assailing the order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). It is in view thereof that arguments were addressed by both the sides confined to this issue, i.e. the preliminary aspect to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, the fate of which would in turn, be material before the Court examines the merits of the impugned order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as per their rankings in M.P. No. 3 of 2012.

2. The first respondent, being the original writ petitioner, filed Patent Applications on 21.9.1998 in respect of ‘An Improved Laser Marking and Engraving Machine and ‘A Process of Manufacturing Engraved Design Articles on Metals or Non-Metals under the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002. The Patent Rules, 2003 have been enacted and brought into force on 20.5.2003 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 159 of the Patents Act. Rule 4 specifies the ‘appropriate office to be the head office of the patent office or the branch office, as the case may be, within whose territorial limits the applicant normally resides or has his domicile or a place of business or the place from where the invention actually originated. It is the say of the first respondent that as per the Official Journal of the Patent Office, it is the Patent Office at Mumbai which is the appropriate office in respect of the States of Gujarat and Maharashtra. Consequently, the aforesaid two patent applications were filed by the first respondent at the Mumbai office of the Controller of Patents, since the first respondent was residing at Mumbai. The patents were so granted and the entry relating to the same was made in the Register of Patents maintained at Mumbai under Rule 88 of the Patent Rules.

3. The petitioner, inter alia, filed applications before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad seeking revocation of the two Patent Nos.188787 and 189027 granted in favour of the first respondent. The first respondent apparently instituted a criminal complaint against the petitioner before the X Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Mumbai. The first respondent, aggrieved by the filing of the revocation applications by the petitioner before the High Court of Gujarat, sought transfer of the same to the High Court of Bombay. However, with the IPAB having been constituted in the year 2007, the applications were transferred by the High Court of Gujarat to the IPAB Circuit Bench at Mumbai, which according to the petitioner, would have the appropriate jurisdiction in respect of the two patent revocation applications, as per the own stand of the first respondent itself. However, it is the case of the petitioner, in view of the urgency of the matter expressed by the petitioner and the Circuit Bench at Mumbai not having adequate time, as per consent of parties and their counsel, the hearing of these applications was scheduled by the IPAB at Chennai, where the Bench held regular proceedings.

4. It is the say of the petitioner that the aforesaid conduct of the first respondent along with the factum of the place of residence of the first respondent as well as it obtaining the registration of the Patent would show that it is the Mumbai Court which would have the jurisdiction in the matter. In fact, the case was appropriately transferred to the Circuit Bench at IPAB at Mumbai, and the only objective of having the hearings at Chennai was to expedite the process as there was heavy backlog of matters pending in the Circuit Bench at Mumbai which would have delayed the hearing, as the Bench sittings used to take place only periodically at Mumbai. It is in view thereof that the order dated 12.7.2012 was passed by the Circuit Bench of IPAB sitting at Mumb