Forum Shopping In Ip Litigation Research
Forum Shopping in IP Litigation
Definition:
Forum shopping occurs when a party intentionally chooses a court or jurisdiction they believe will be more favorable to their case, instead of filing in a neutral or most appropriate forum. In Intellectual Property (IP) litigation, forum shopping can arise due to differences in:
Procedural laws (speed of injunctions, discovery rules)
Substantive laws (interpretation of patent, trademark, copyright)
Judicial attitudes (courts known to favor certain parties or industries)
Significance in IP:
IP rights are territorial and vary across jurisdictions. Forum shopping in IP can lead to:
Multiplicity of suits in different jurisdictions
Conflicting judgments
Increased litigation costs
Strategic abuse by rights holders
Courts worldwide have tried to curb forum shopping by imposing doctrines like lex loci protectionis, first-filed rule, and anti-suit injunctions.
Case Studies Illustrating Forum Shopping in IP Litigation
1. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (USA, 2011 onwards)
Jurisdiction: USA (District Court, Northern District of California) and international courts.
Facts: Apple filed multiple lawsuits against Samsung for design and utility patent infringements in the USA, Germany, and other countries. Samsung counter-sued Apple in various jurisdictions.
Forum Shopping Aspect: Both parties filed suits in jurisdictions favorable to their IP arguments (e.g., Germany was favorable for design patents).
Judgment & Outcome: Courts highlighted strategic filings and sometimes consolidated matters to avoid contradictory rulings. The USA courts considered prior foreign judgments under comity principles.
Significance: Highlighted cross-border forum shopping in multinational IP disputes and led to international dialogue on harmonizing IP enforcement.
2. Novartis AG v. Union of India (Supreme Court of India, 2013)
Jurisdiction: India
Facts: Novartis challenged the rejection of its patent application for Glivec (cancer drug) under Indian patent law. Concurrently, Novartis initiated proceedings in other countries seeking patent protection for the same molecule.
Forum Shopping Aspect: Filing in multiple countries to obtain the most favorable patent outcome for the same invention.
Judgment & Outcome: Indian Supreme Court refused the patent under Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act, focusing on anti-evergreening provisions.
Significance: Emphasized that forum shopping in pharmaceutical patents may fail when domestic law principles (public health vs. IP rights) dominate.
3. Microsoft Corp. v. Lindows.com (USA, 2001)
Jurisdiction: USA (Washington State) and Ireland
Facts: Microsoft sued Lindows for trademark infringement. Lindows attempted to challenge the suit in Ireland, hoping for a favorable European ruling.
Forum Shopping Aspect: Attempt to use a foreign jurisdiction to avoid a U.S. court’s strong stance on trademark enforcement.
Judgment & Outcome: U.S. courts applied the doctrine of forum non conveniens to assert jurisdiction and prevent evasion of U.S. IP laws.
Significance: Demonstrated how courts can prevent abusive forum shopping in trademark disputes.
4. Amazon.com, Inc. v. Future Retail Ltd. (India, 2021)
Jurisdiction: India
Facts: Amazon filed multiple suits in Delhi and other jurisdictions for trademark and contractual disputes. Future Retail attempted to shift cases to local commercial courts in Maharashtra.
Forum Shopping Aspect: Parties attempted to pick forums based on anticipated speed, familiarity, or perceived partiality.
Judgment & Outcome: Indian courts scrutinized the choice of forum and applied Section 20 CPC (place of suing) to restrict improper forum selection.
Significance: Indian courts increasingly resist forum shopping in IP and commercial disputes to maintain procedural fairness.
5. Bayer v. Union of India (2014-2016)
Jurisdiction: India
Facts: Bayer filed patent cases related to a pharmaceutical drug, while simultaneously pursuing related claims in Germany and the USA.
Forum Shopping Aspect: Seeking multiple patents and enforcement outcomes across jurisdictions.
Judgment & Outcome: Indian courts emphasized the domestic patent law and public interest, rejecting excessive reliance on foreign patent grants.
Significance: Reinforced India’s stance against relying solely on foreign judgments, indirectly discouraging forum shopping.
6. Nokia v. InterDigital (USA & EU, 2007-2012)
Jurisdiction: USA and European Union
Facts: Nokia sued InterDigital for patent infringement in the EU, while InterDigital countered in the USA.
Forum Shopping Aspect: Attempt to obtain favorable rulings regarding Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) in different jurisdictions.
Judgment & Outcome: Courts coordinated to some extent, but inconsistencies in rulings highlighted the challenges of cross-border IP litigation.
Significance: Showed the role of strategic jurisdiction selection in standard-essential patent disputes.
7. L’Oréal v. eBay (France & USA, 2010-2012)
Jurisdiction: France, USA
Facts: L’Oréal sued eBay for facilitating counterfeit sales on its platform. Suits were filed in multiple countries.
Forum Shopping Aspect: L’Oréal aimed for jurisdictions with stronger anti-counterfeit enforcement.
Judgment & Outcome: French courts held eBay liable for not controlling counterfeit goods; U.S. courts took a narrower approach.
Significance: Illustrated how forum shopping can lead to divergent outcomes based on territorial IP enforcement laws.
Key Takeaways from Cases
Forum shopping is prevalent in cross-border patent, trademark, and copyright disputes.
Courts use doctrines like:
Forum non conveniens
First-filed rule
Anti-suit injunctions
to limit abusive litigation strategies.
Domestic law, public interest, and procedural fairness often override attempts at forum shopping.
IP globalization has increased strategic filings but also coordinated judicial approaches to harmonize enforcement.
RELATED Blog
comments