An International Guide to
Patent Case Management for Judges

Full guide

Download full guide Download current chapter
WIPO Translate
Google Translate

6.8.1 Cases involving groundless threats of illegal proceedings What constitutes a “threat”?

Keeping in mind the serious negative effects and consequences associated with infringement proceedings, the stated policy of the law is that no person should unnecessarily be subjected to baseless threats of infringement. Under the Patents Act, 1970, groundless threats of infringement are considered civil wrongs.

A “groundless threat” under the Act is an unjustified or wrongful threat by which any person, whether having an interest in the patent or not,227 threatens another with legal proceedings without a reasonable basis. It is important to note that the mere notification of the existence of a patent does not constitute a threat of proceedings within the meaning of the relevant section. In LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd v. Bharat Bhogilal Patel,228 the Delhi High Court clarified that

if any proprietor or the right holder issues a notice to the custom officials and the custom officials act upon the same by restricting the imports of consignments of any party without the determination (prima facie or otherwise) of the factum of infringement of patent by the appropriate designated authority, then such notice by the right holder to the customs and the actions thereof by the customs either in the form of notice to that party or otherwise calling upon the party to explain its stand are all unnecessary illegal threats to that party.

In Bata India Ltd v. Vitaflex Mauch GmbH,229 even a legal notice was considered a “threat,” and, on facts, it was concluded that threats made by the defendant to the plaintiff were groundless, unjustifiable and wrongful. Remedies

The court typically considers the grant of the following reliefs:

  1. (a) a declaration to the effect that the threats are unjustifiable;
  2. (b) an injunction against the continuance of the threats; and
  3. (c) such damages, if any, as he has sustained thereby.230

The court is also empowered to pass interim orders, as in any other civil suit. For instance, in LG Electronics,231 a suit was initiated on the basis that the filing of a border enforcement action with customs without a finding of infringement from the court amounted to a groundless threat. In the facts of the case, the Delhi High Court passed an interim order staying the operation of a border enforcement action to stop the import of allegedly infringing goods, pending a final decision from a civil court on the issue of infringement.