Background
In Glaverbel S.A. v. Dave Rose & Ors., the plaintiff sought, by way of an interlocutory application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to amend its claims in one suit (CS(OS) No. 594/2007) to match an amendment to independent Claim 1 that had already been allowed in a separate, related suit (CS(OS) No. 593/2007) concerning the same Patent No. 190380.
The Court's Ruling
Justice A.K. Pathak of the Delhi High Court rejected the application, relying on the certified copy of the Patent Office record, which did not reflect the amendment sought. The Court held that an amendment allowed in one suit does not automatically carry over into a related suit — each suit's pleadings must independently reflect the claims actually being asserted in that proceeding, and any change requires a proper application to amend the plaint itself, not merely a reference to what was permitted elsewhere.
Practical Implications
- Patentees litigating parallel or related infringement suits over the same patent should ensure that any claim amendment permitted in one proceeding is separately and formally sought in every other related proceeding where it is relevant.
- Courts will scrutinise claim amendments against the certified Patent Office record — any application must be consistent with what is actually on record, not with an amendment pending or allowed elsewhere.
- This case is a reminder that procedural rigor in multi-suit patent litigation matters: assumptions of consistency across related suits are not a substitute for formally amending each pleading.