JUDGMENT :

ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

1. All the captioned Suits have been filed for infringement of two Patents which were granted to the Plaintiff vide Orders dated 14th August 2003 and 27th October 2003 respectively. The first patent is titled 'Improved laser marking and engraving machine', and the other, 'Process of manufacturing engraved design articles on metals or non-metals' (“the said patents”).

2. Briefly stated, it is the common stand of the Defendants in all the captioned Suits that the Plaintiff did not have locus and/or any cause of action for filing the said Suits since the above-mentioned patents had been revoked on the date when the captioned Suits were filed. It is thus the case of the Defendants that a Suit for infringement of the said patents would not be maintainable. Accordingly, the Defendants in the captioned Suits have filed the Notice of Motion No. 1604 of 2019, Notice of Motion No. 1602 of 2019 and Notice of Motion No. 1593 of 2019 under the provisions of Order XIII-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('CPC'), seeking summary dismissal of the Suit. The Defendant in Suit No. 359 of 2017 has additionally filed Notice of Motion No. 820 of 2018 under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the Plaint on the ground that the same does not disclose a cause of action.

3. However, before adverting to the rival contentions, it is useful for context to set out the following facts:

i. After the grant of the said patents, several applications seeking revocation of the said patents came to be filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), Chennai, including an application filed by one Aditi Manufacturing Company. The IPAB, vide an order dated 12th June 2012 (“first order”), allowed the application filed by Aditi Manufacturing Company and revoked both the said patents.

ii. The Plaintiff assailed the first order by filing Writ Petitions before the Madras High Court in which the Madras High Court, pending the hearing of the said Writ Petitions vide an Order dated 19th November, 2012, stayed the First Order.

iii. The IPAB thereafter, vide subsequent orders dated 14th March, 2013 (“second order”) and 7th March, 2014 (“third order"), allowed two other applications which had also sought revocation of the said Patents.

iv. On 8th October 2014, the Madras High Court disposed of the Writ Petitions essentially on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Madras High Court, however, continued the stay granted earlier and also granted the Plaintiff liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings before this Court to challenge the first order. The Plaintiff, accordingly, in October 2014, filed Writ Petition No. 2867 of 2014 in this Court impugning the first order.

v. This Court, vide an order dated 3rd September, 2015, set aside the first order and remanded the matter back to the IPAB for consideration afresh.

vi. It is not in dispute that after the Madras High Court stayed the First Order, the Plaintiff has been paying the renewal fees for the said Patents and that the Controller of Patents has continued to maintain both the said Patents as “in force” on the e-Register of Patents.

Defendant’s Submissions seeking a summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC:

4. Mr. Kane, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants at the outset, submitted that though the first order had been set aside, the IPAB had, by the second and third orders (“subsequent orders of revocation”), independently revoked the said patents. He submitted that the Plaintiffs had not admittedly even assailed the subsequent orders of revocation, and therefore the Plaintiff could not have filed any of the captioned Suits since the said patents stood independently revoked by the subsequent orders of revocation.

5. Mr. Kane then pointed out that, the IPAB had expressly clarified in both the subsequent orders of revocation that it would be open to the Plaintiff, based on the outcome of the Writ Petitions filed by the Plaintiff before the