Introduction
Delay in adjudication is not new in India. Unnecessary delays through misuse of procedural complexities often tends to delay the dispensation of justice. Efficient adjudication and resolution of disputes are pivotal to any developed judicial system. These reinforce trust in the judicial set up of a country, thereby, facilitating effective commercial partnerships globally. In this backdrop, the Indian parliament enacted the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“Act”), with the aim to provide a procedural framework that leads to expeditious resolution of commercial disputes. Section 2(1)(c) of the Act provides for an exhaustive definition of “commercial disputes”, which includes, among other things, disputes arising out of intellectual property rights (“IPR”) relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications, and semiconductor-integrated circuits. Thus, IPR disputes are commercial disputes [1].
With certain amendments, Section 16 of the Act makes the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“Code”), applicable to commercial disputes. Order XI of the Code, as applicable to the Act, provides for disclosure, discovery, and inspection of documents in a suit pertaining to a commercial dispute. Rule 2 therein provides for discovery by interrogatories. The purpose of this provision is to ensure bringing all relevant information for the proper adjudication of the dispute to the court’s notice. It also provides internal safeguards to ensure that an application for discovery by interrogatories is not vexatious, scandalous, irrelevant, unreasonable, etc. Thus, it vests the court with enough power to safeguard the interests of the party from whom answers to interrogatories are sought.
In patent suits relating to inventions, technical advancements, etc., disclosure through interrogatories may often lead to the disclosure of confidential and business sensitive information. Often the party from whom the discovery is sought raises this defence. The courts have repeatedly settled the law on such objections. Recently, the High Court of Delhi (“Delhi HC”) in Largan Precision Co Ltd. v. Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd (“Largan Case”) [2] reiterated the law on the scope of interrogatories, the obligations of parties, and the defence of confidentiality pleaded by the defendant therein.
This blog summarises the Delhi HC’s observations in the Largan Case and argues that the Delhi HC has laid down a consistent jurisprudence in such issues. It ends with providing the possible recourses that the parties and practitioners can take while seeking/opposing an application for discovery by interrogatories in patent infringement suits.
Facts in the Largan Case
The Largan Case was filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff’s Indian patent. The said patent pertained to a component of the mobile phone’s inbuilt camera system, which is used to block or minimise lens flare-causing undesired stray light. Thereafter, the Plaintiff had also filed an interim application seeking interrogatories relating to manufacture, import, sale, revenue, suppliers, etc., of the allegedly infringing products of the Defendants. Importantly, the interrogatories were filed by the Plaintiff along with the suit itself.
The Defendants initially furnished certain information with respect to the interrogatories, but the Delhi HC later directed them to provide in a sealed cover all information relating to the product launch, technical specifications, and the supplier. Although the Defendants complied with the direction, they prayed that the court not disclose such information to the Plaintiff because it contained confidential data. Notably, the Defendants also argued that they had not even filed their defence when the Plaintiff had sought the interrogatories. Moreover, placing reliance on Section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which provides that the burden of proof on any particular fact lay with the person who wants the court to believe in its existence, the Defendants argued that it was up to the Plaintiff to prove their case instead of seeking interrogatories from them.
The Plaintiff, on the other hand, submitted that the information is necessary for the effective and expeditious adjudication of the present suit.
Decision of the Court and Analysis
The Delhi HC bench of Justice Amit Bansal, on an examination of the law on the issue, held that the interrogatories’ purpose is to shorten the trial and save the possible cost incurred in producing evidence to prove the case. Moreover, while adjudicating upon an application for interrogatories, the scope of examination for the courts is whether the answer to the interrogatories would have a bearing on the determination of the dispute between the parties. The mere possibility of interrogatories being taken up during cross-examination cannot be the basis for denying the interrogatories.
Thus, the essence of the statutory provisions is to curtail time on any delaying factors and upfront provide the court with all necessary information for the adjudication of the dispute. Such an approach aligns positively with efficient and speedier dispute resolution. More importantly, in IPR disputes—particularly patent disputes—a comprehensive availability of information can result in proper adjudication since such disputes can often be very technical and nuanced. The approach will enable the court to examine extensive material and information before coming to a judicial conclusion. In fact, as is also recorded by the Delhi HC in the Largan Case, the High Court of Delhi Rules Governing Patents Suits, 2022 (“Patent Rules”) provide for a higher level of disclosure in a patent infringement suit both in respect of the plaintiff(s) and the defendant(s).
Therefore, a party is required to disclose all information and documents in its power and possession that are germane for the adjudication of the suit. A party cannot be heard voicing its refusal to disclose information or file documents, as this may go against its interest in the suit proceedings.
The judgment also allays the confidentiality concerns of parties while providing information in response to the interrogatories. In this regard, it places reliance on Rule 11 of the Patent Rules, which provides for the constitution of a “confidentiality club” and redaction of confidential information.
Scope of the Interrogatories
Placing reliance on Tara Batra v. Pumam A Kumar [3], the Delhi HC held that the scope of interrogatories a party has filed has to be adjudicated on the criteria of whether the interrogatories would be necessary for the fair adjudication of the suit. If the answer is in the affirmative, the other side has no recourse but to comply. Confidentiality, relevance, and other recourses available for proving the case are all ancillary factors and need not be considered while deciding the merit of the interrogatories.
Particularly in patent infringement suits, the Delhi HC placed reliance on Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. VIVO Mobile Communication Co. Ltd. [4], to hold that if the interrogatories have a bearing on the determination of the dispute, then the defendant would have to answer them. The Delhi HC summed up its findings, thus:
“From the discussion above, it is clear that Courts should adopt a liberal approach in allowing request for interrogatories as well as production of documents, especially in commercial cases. The only factor the Court has to consider is whether the disclosure/document sought by the party would have a bearing on the determination of the dispute between the parties. The issue of whether the said disclosure/document would be against the interest of a party in the suit is wholly irrelevant”
Conclusion and Impact
Thus, the Delhi HC has echoed and reiterated that the courts ought to take a liberal approach while deciding on an application for interrogatories. Further, the interrogatories play an important role at the pre-trial stage in ensuring all relevant information for the determination of the dispute is brought to the court’s knowledge. Thus, irrespective of the defence filed (or not filed) by the defendant, the plaintiff is within their rights to file an application for interrogatories.
While filing an application for interrogatories, it is important that they assist the court in fair adjudication of the dispute. Else, the court can set aside such an application along with an imposition of costs. In their response, the opposite side can raise objections to answering any interrogatory inter alia on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or that the matters inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage, or even on the ground of privilege. Furthermore, the court can set aside the interrogatories on the ground that were exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously or struck out on the ground that they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary, or scandalous.
[1] Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015’
[2] Largan Precision Co Ltd. v. Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd; CS (COMM) 795 / 2022
[3] 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4331
[4] 2022 SCC OnLine Del 53
