The Chennai High Court (HC) in a recent judgement, rejected a patent suit filed by Swiss drug company, Hoffman La Roche against Matrix Pharmaceuticals on the ground that, the company had no jurisdiction to file the suit in the state. While rejecting the suit, the Chennai HC held that the two claims that Roche made against Matrix while filing the suit was not admissible and found that the company was attempting to create a jurisdiction own its own through this claim.

Roche in its patent infringement suit against Matrix claimed that, by approaching Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) with the revocation petition in Chennai, to commercially manufacture, use, sell and distribute the generic version of erlotinib hydrochloride, Matrix was trying to infringe the suit patent.

The company further alleged that Matrix has been conducting clinical trial of their drugs in Lotus Laboratory in  Chennai which according to Roche was infringing the patent all over India, including Chennai which is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this HC.

Dr Gopakumar G Nair, intellectual property and patent and trade mark attorney  pointed out that under the recent judgement the HC held that Matrix by approaching the IPA Board Chennai did not give rise to a cause of action from Roche against Matrix as mere filing of an application for revocation in IPA Board, Chennai cannot give rise to a cause of action especially since IPA Board has its headquarters at Chennai.

Moreover on the issue over clinical trials, the HC held that since there was no physical inspection of the lab in Chennai in October 2008, it cannot be said that in view of location of Lotus Labs, Chennai and conducting tests in 2005 would give rise to a cause of action to file the suit in Chennai in 2011.

Dr Nair informed that by filing the suit on these basis, Roche was trying to do 'forum shopping' which in legal terms mean trying to buy jurisdiction in a state wherein it does not have any, otherwise.  He pointed out, “Merely because the seat of IPA Board is in Chennai, the filing of revocation petition cannot give rise to cause of action to invoke the jurisdiction of original side of Madras High Court. No cause of action, much less a substantial or integral part of cause of action has arisen in Chennai.”

The Chennai HC while rejecting the patent suit against Matrix also rejected another patent suit filed by Roche against Intas Pharma on the same grounds.

He informed that even though Roche's petition was rejected by Chennai HC, the company still have two options with them. Roche can either appeal to the Supreme Court against the HC judgement or file a new suit in the state, in this case Hyderabad for Matrix and Ahmedabad for Intas wherein it has a jurisdiction.

At present Roche is embroiled in multiple patent suit against number of Indian generic companies like Cipla, Dr Reddy's, Glenmark and four other smaller companies in Delhi HC.