Summary
In the case of Helsinn Healthcare SA vs AET Laboratories, the Delhi High Court dismissed a quia timet patent infringement suit on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction and absence of a credible threat. The Court held that listing a product as "under development" on a foreign website and filing a post-grant opposition were insufficient to establish apprehension of infringement. It also ruled that the mere accessibility of a foreign website in India does not confer jurisdiction.
Background
Territorial Jurisdiction and Quia Timet Patent Actions Helsinn Healthcare SA, the plaintiff, filed a suit for patent infringement against AET Laboratories before the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff relied on the defendant’s website, which listed a generic version of the patented drug as being “under development,” and the fact that the defendant had filed a post-grant opposition. Based on this, Helsinn claimed there was a real and imminent threat of patent infringement.
The defendant, AET Laboratories, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, primarily on the ground that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, and that there was no cause of action.
Questions Before the Court
-
- Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, based on web-accessible information.
- Whether a quia timet action for patent infringement could be sustained based on a product listed as “under development.”
- Whether filing of a post-grant opposition constituted an act of threat or apprehension of infringement.
- Whether a foreign website accessible in India could trigger jurisdiction under the Banyan Tree principle.
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Plaintiff’s Arguments:
-
- The defendant’s website stated that the product was “under development,” showing clear intention to commercialise the infringing product.
- The post-grant opposition filed by the defendant showed a pre-emptive attack on the patent and supported the apprehension.
- The Delhi High Court had jurisdiction as the website was accessible in Delhi.
Defendant’s Arguments:
-
- No commercial activity related to the allegedly infringing product had taken place in Delhi or anywhere in India.
- The website was only informational, hosted abroad, and did not target Indian consumers or market.
- Filing a post-grant opposition was a legal remedy and did not indicate intent to infringe.
- Under the Banyan Tree principle, jurisdiction could not be claimed merely on the basis of a passive foreign website.
Court’s Analysis
On Territorial Jurisdiction
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy, and held that mere accessibility of a website in a forum is not enough to establish jurisdiction. The Court said that the plaintiff had not shown any evidence of the website being interactive, targeting consumers in Delhi, or resulting in any commercial transaction. Therefore, the Delhi High Court did not have jurisdiction.
On Quia Timet Action
The Court stated that a quia timet action requires a credible and imminent threat of infringement. The phrase “under development” on a website did not indicate imminent launch or sale of a product in India. No steps such as drug approvals, manufacturing, or marketing were shown to have occurred.
On Filing of Post-Grant Opposition
The Court held that the filing of a post-grant opposition under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act is a legal and procedural remedy. It cannot be treated as evidence of an intention to infringe or commercialise a product.
On Website Accessibility and the Banyan Tree Principle As per the Court, the plaintiff failed to show purposeful targeting or commercial intent directed at Delhi through the website. The Court reaffirmed that territorial jurisdiction in internet-based disputes must be based on purposeful availment, not mere availability.
Findings
-
- The Court dismissed the suit for lack of territorial jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11.
- It held that the plaintiff had not established a real or credible threat of infringement.
- It stated that filing a post-grant opposition did not amount to an apprehension of infringement.
- Website accessibility alone did not confer jurisdiction in Delhi.
Relevant Paras
-
- Para 10: “The only ground on which the plaintiff has approached this Court is that the product in question is ‘under development’.”
- Para 14: “The fact that a post-grant opposition was filed… does not by itself raise any credible apprehension of patent infringement.”
- Para 20: “Mere accessibility of a foreign website in Delhi does not vest this Court with territorial jurisdiction…”
Case Citation
Helsinn Healthcare SA v. AET Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., CS(COMM)-1188/2024 (Del. HC Sept. 26, 2025), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20647105/ (last visited Sept. 29, 2025).
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.
