The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that mere production of invoices showing the sale of an allegedly infringing product by a retailer is insufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction in a patent infringement suit unless it is prima facie established that the manufacturer supplied the product to the retailer for sale within the State.

The Court observed that four isolated purchases from an unauthorised retailer could not, by themselves, confer territorial jurisdiction upon the Court.

Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Mere production thereof would not, by itself, be sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Court until it is established that the impugned products were supplied by Defendant No. 2 to Defendant No. 1 for sale in the territory of Himachal Pradesh.”

SML Limited filed a patent infringement suit against Mohan & Company and another, alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and selling an agricultural composition under the brand name 'ZeekaSulf', which infringed its Indian Patent No. 282092.

The plaintiff claimed that the infringing product was being sold through a retailer in Tehsil Theog, Himachal Pradesh, and relied upon four purchase invoices to establish territorial jurisdiction. It sought a permanent injunction, damages of ₹1.02 crore and destruction of the infringing stock. The Court had initially granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on July 24, 2023.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of territorial jurisdiction. The Court observed that the four alleged purchase invoices from the retailer in Theog were insufficient to establish that Defendant No. 2 had supplied the disputed product to Defendant No. 1 for sale in Himachal Pradesh.

It further noted that there was no evidence of authorisation under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 or any actual online transaction within the State.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application seeking interim injunction, clarifying that its observations would not affect the merits of the main suit.

Date of Decision: 15.10.2026