Bombay High Court Refuses Summary Dismissal Of TVS Electronics Patent Suit, Holds Later IPAB Revocation Orders Not Conclusive At Threshold

Bharat Bhogilal Patel vs TVS Electronics [Decided on May 07, 2026]

May 12, 2026

TBB Editor

The Bombay High Court has held that where subsequent revocation orders are founded upon an earlier revocation order concerning the same patents, and the earlier order has been stayed and later set aside, the subsequent orders cannot, at the threshold, be treated as conclusively establishing that the patents stood independently revoked, especially where the patents continued to be renewed and maintained as “in force” by the Controller and the issue of revocation remains pending for fresh determination. In such circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be said to have no real prospect of success, and summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC is not warranted.

Further, the Court explained that where the defendants’ objection to maintainability depends upon disputed questions relating to the legal effect of revocation orders, stay orders, register entries, renewal of patents, and alleged suppression, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, because that inquiry would require the Court to travel beyond the plaint and assess matters requiring evidence. The test under Order VII Rule 11 remains confined to whether the plaint, as read, discloses a cause of action.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor observed that a plain reading of the operative parts of the 2013 and 2014 IPAB orders showed that they were based entirely on the first order dated 12 June 2012 and were not truly independent, self-sustaining revocation orders. The Bench also observed that, although the second order contained a statement that the invention lacked novelty and inventive step, it did not furnish independent reasoning to sustain revocation on its own.

The Bench found merit in the submission that the later revocation orders were never given effect to, as the patents had continued to be renewed and shown as “in force,” and because the Controller’s own affidavits indicated that the legal status of the patents had been maintained in light of the stay orders passed by the Madras High Court and the Bombay High Court.

The Bench further observed that the defendants themselves had not sought deletion of the patents from the register under Section 71(c) of the Patents Act despite being aware of the later revocation orders, which weakened their stand that the patents stood conclusively revoked. It held that the plaintiff had a real prospect of succeeding and that several triable issues arose, including whether the later revocation orders were consequential or independent, whether setting aside the first order rendered the later orders ineffective, what legal effect followed from the stay orders and the Controller’s conduct, and whether there had been any suppression by the plaintiff.

On that basis, the Bench refused summary dismissal under Order XIII-A. It also rejected the prayer under Order VII Rule 11, holding that the defendants’ case required the Court to look beyond the plaint and enter into disputed questions of fact and law, which was impermissible at that stage. The notices of motion were dismissed with costs and the suits were directed to proceed to trial.

Briefly, the dispute concerns a batch of commercial patent infringement suits filed by Bharat Bhogilal Patel against different defendants in relation to two patents granted in 2003, namely “Improved laser marking and engraving machine” and “Process of manufacturing engraved design articles on metals or non-metals.” The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had first revoked both patents by order dated 12 June 2012, which was stayed by the Madras High Court on 19 November 2012 pending writ petitions filed by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the IPAB passed further orders dated 14 March 2013 and 7 March 2014 allowing other revocation applications concerning the same patents.

The Madras High Court later disposed of the writ petitions on jurisdictional grounds on 8 October 2014, while continuing interim protection and granting liberty to the plaintiff to move the Bombay High Court, after which the plaintiff filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. By order dated 3 September 2015, the Bombay High Court set aside the first revocation order and remanded the matter to the IPAB for fresh consideration. After the stay of the first order, the plaintiff continued paying renewal fees and the Controller continued to show both patents as “in force” in the e-Register of Patents.

The defendants argued that the later IPAB orders of 2013 and 2014 were independent orders of revocation, were never challenged by the plaintiff, and had therefore attained finality. They further argued that continued payment and acceptance of renewal fees could not override revocation orders, since renewal was only a ministerial act, and alleged that the plaintiff had suppressed the later revocation orders while asserting in the plaint that the patents were valid and enforceable.

The plaintiff did not dispute the existence of the later revocation orders, but contended that they had no legal effect because they were entirely premised on the first revocation order, which had been stayed and later set aside. The plaintiff also argued that the later revocation orders were never communicated to or acted upon by the Controller as contemplated under Section 117D(2) of the Patents Act, since the patents remained on the register, were renewed, and continued to be shown as “in force.”