With the ever-increasing significance of intellectual property rights in the commercial world, the speedy and effective adjudication of intellectual property (IP) disputes is all the more desirable now. Previously, a three-tier dispute resolution system for IP matters was in place. The initial one being the registrar of the respective registry, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) being the next, and the courts are at the top. The IPAB, established in 2003, was facing a shortage of technical personnel and the Delhi High Court also criticized the same and held that the Chairman’s post cannot remain vacant. The board had original as well as appellate jurisdiction. The jurisdictional conflicts between the IPAB and the High Courts and District Courts in matters such as infringement suits caused duplicity and delay. On account of the failure of the IPAB in ensuring speedy and effective adjudication of IP disputes, it was abolished by the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance 2021. However, this led to the High Courts being additionally burdened with numerous pending IP disputes. The Delhi High Court’s decision to create an Intellectual Property Division in July 2021 is laudable. Other High Courts with a significant number of IP disputes located in major cities with commercial settlements in the country should follow suit. It will provide relief to the judiciary as well as the litigants in handling cases.

What does the Special Court entail?

The present separate Intellectual Property Division of the Delhi High Court was in response to The Tribunal Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 promulgated on April 4, 2021, the evident effect of which was the abolishment of all Intellectual Property Appellate Board Tribunals.

This sudden abolishment of IPABs led to the immediate transfer of all the pending cases before the aforementioned Boards/Tribunals to the Hon’ble High Court. Before its abolition, the IPAB had a number of cases pending before it. Hence, post its abolishment a total of 3,000 cases have been transferred to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court for further adjudication. This was an unprecedented burden that was imposed upon the High Court and in response, a committee headed by Chief Justice Patel, Justice Singh and Justice Narula recommended the formation of a separate Intellectual Property Division for ease in the adjudication of such cases.

This separate bench will ensure that such cases are presented before judges who are well versed with nuances of IP and have had prior experience during their stint in the bar as well as the bench. The Delhi High Court has some of the brightest minds in the realm of IP law on its bench. It includes exceptional jurists in the realm of IP including, but not restricted to Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Narula who have contributed significantly towards the development of IP jurisprudence in India. Delhi High Court was the parent court of retired Justice Manmohan Singh as well, who later served as the Chairman of IPAB.

The duration for which this division bench will exist has not been notified as of yet; however, there is a possibility that it is meant to stay for a long run, considering the rise in the number of IP related disputes before the Hon’ble High Court. The procedural aspect of these cases will be governed by the Delhi High Court Patent Rules, 2020, which are yet to be implemented.

Special IP Courts & Benches in Foreign Jurisdiction

Specialized IP law bench is not a new concept. Rather, it has been in existence for the past few decades in numerous other jurisdictions with flourishing commercial practice, which by default attracted IP litigation. Over the course of time, the uniqueness of IP related matters has compelled numerous countries to establish special courts or benches within their jurisdiction to specifically deal with IP related matters. The United Kingdom was one of the first such countries which established the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) in 2010. This decision was in response to the otherwise high costs which were incurred by the litigants while going through the normal process of law. This was further aggravated with inexperienced judges in the realm of IP law seated at the trial level. The efficiency of these courts can be ascertained from the very fact that trials didn’t last longer than 2 days on average.

The United States is considered one of the oldest countries having its IP law codified, and that too in its Constitution. IP laws were incorporated in the US Constitution in form of the Copyright Clause under Article 1, Section 8 by its framers as long back as 1787. In pursuance of its constitutional obligation, the US government has created the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as the only appellate level court in the United States other than the Supreme Court of the United States which is competent to adjudicate upon cases related to patents. However, the US doesn’t have a special court at the trial level to deal with IP related matters.

Canada on the other hand does not have a special IP Court or Bench to deal with such matter; instead, such cases ideally go to Provincial or Federal Court for adjudication. However, at the federal level, the judges who deal with IP related matters are select individuals who have had prior experience in the realm of IP and hence federal courts are the preferred forum for adjudication of such disputes.

Effectiveness and Viability of Such IP Benches

The formation of the IP bench by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court is a step in line with global practices in this regard. This provides the litigants with a proper forum to have their cases adjudicated at the appellate level by a Court of Record having a precedent value within its state. Considering that Delhi is the hotbed of IP related matters, its judgment will have considerable influence over the IP regime in India and abroad.

This decision of the Delhi High Court will have two-fold implications on both the judiciary as well as the litigants. While on the one hand, it will streamline the adjudication of IP related matters by the Hon’ble High Court, thereby reducing the burden on the Judges and fast track the adjudication process in IP related matters. On the other hand, it will provide litigants to have their matter heard by judges who are considered experts in the realm of IP law.

Such a division of the High Court was particularly the need of the hour, in response to The Tribunal Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, which by default abolished all the Intellectual Property Appellate Boards in India. Disposing of all the pending suits would have had become a humongous task for the High Court had it not formed a proper system to manage the flow of extra cases.

Conclusion

The creation of an Intellectual Property Division at the Delhi High Court is a first of its kind and has paved the way for quicker and effective settlement of the pending IP disputes. This is also in consonance with the practice in various major jurisdictions across the world. The division bench comprising of judges with extensive experience in hearing cases pertaining to IP disputes is a positive attempt to replace the less efficient IPAB. Further, in cases requiring technical assistance, the court can rely on expert witnesses. According to the press note released by the Delhi High Court, “This has been done in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions with respect to matters relating to the same trademarks, patents, design etc.”  The Delhi High Court is also in the process of laying down comprehensive rules for the Intellectual Property Division. It would be interesting to witness this development in other High Courts. This certainly gives hope to litigants in these times of increasing commercial significance of intellectual property rights. This is also in consonance with the practice in various major jurisdictions across the world.

Komal Parnami is a 4th year student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab and Pritesh Raj is a 3rd year student at the National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi.

Suggested citation: Komal Parnami and Pritesh Raj, Institution of Separate Intellectual Property Division by the Delhi High Court: A Viable Replacement for Intellectual Property Appellate Board?, JURIST – Student Commentary, July 28, 2021, https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2021/07/parnami-raj-delhi-ip-bench/.

This article was prepared for publication by Giri Aravind, a JURIST staff editor. Please direct any questions or comments to him at commentary@jurist.org