The Delhi High Court in Kubota Corporation vs Godabari Agro Machinery and Services (12 August 2025) dealt with a significant question of territorial jurisdiction in patent infringement suits. The Court was asked to decide whether an “offer for sale” of an allegedly infringing product within Delhi, even without proof of an actual sale, was sufficient to confer jurisdiction. In rejecting the defendant’s objection under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, which governs the return of a plaint when a court finds it lacks the necessary jurisdiction to try the case, the Court reaffirmed that offers for sale of patented products within a forum are enough to establish cause of action, making this judgment a vital precedent for patent holders and businesses facing cross-border infringement disputes in India.
Kubota is a multinational engaged in manufacturing patented agricultural machinery, particularly self-propelled combine harvesters under the brand name HARVES KING. The defendants comprised a Chinese parent company (Defendant No.3), its overseas subsidiary (Defendant No.2), and an Indian company based in Orissa (Defendant No.1), which imported, assembled, and sold the machines in India.
The main questions before the Court were whether Delhi High Court had jurisdiction despite the defendants not being based in Delhi, whether an “offer for sale” was sufficient to establish jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Patents Act. As per Section 48(a) of the Patents Act, 1970, a patentee has the exclusive right to prevent third-parties from selling or offering for sale a patented product in India.
Another question before the Court was whether communications by dealers or distributors could confer jurisdiction, and whether trap transactions carried out by the Plaintiff’s investigators could form the basis for jurisdiction.
The Court observed that at the stage of an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, all averments in the plaint must be assumed to be true. It relied on the investigator’s affidavit and email correspondence, which showed that Defendant No.1’s Sales Manager had offered to deliver the impugned product in Delhi. Section 48 of the Patents Act confers exclusive rights on a patentee not only to prevent sales but also offers for sale of a patented product. Hence, even without actual sales in Delhi, the offer for delivery there created a valid cause of action.
The Court distinguished precedents such as Kohinoor Seed and Banyan Tree, noting that those cases dealt with mere online listings or website access, while the present case involved a direct offer for supply in Delhi. It further held that Agroharvest Solutions, being a distributor, did not need to be impleaded separately since the communication had been channelled through Defendant No.1’s Sales Manager.
On this basis, the Court concluded that part of the cause of action had arisen within Delhi under Section 20(c) CPC. The application seeking return of the plaint was dismissed, and the Delhi High Court retained jurisdiction over the suit.
The key takeaway from this ruling is that in patent infringement suits, even an offer for sale of the infringing product within the forum’s jurisdiction is enough to establish territorial jurisdiction, and an actual sale is not necessary. Courts will accept plaint averments as true at the preliminary stage, and communications made by agents or distributors can be sufficient to show territorial links.
LAW-IP AND MORE 