Jurisdictional Reach under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent in Copyright Disputes

Introduction

The judgment in Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v. Wunderbar Films Private Limited (2025:MHC:240) delivered by the Madras High Court on January 28, 2025, addresses critical issues concerning jurisdiction and the admissibility of a suit that combines claims under the Copyright Act with claims based on the High Court’s original civil jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The dispute involves a complex copyright infringement scenario relating to behind‐the‐scenes footage allegedly used without permission. The case pits Los Gatos Production Services India LLP—a unit of Netflix—against multiple respondents including Wunderbar Films Private Limited, Tarc Studios LLP, M/s. Rowdy Pictures Private Limited, and individual personalities associated with the project.

The applicant/fifth defendant (in this context, filed by one of the respondents) challenged two procedural aspects: firstly, the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and, secondly, the revocation of the leave to sue granted earlier by the Court. Central to the dispute is the interplay between the Copyright Act’s Section 62 and the Court’s jurisdictional power granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Moreover, the case raises questions concerning the doctrine of election in legal remedies and whether the necessity for pre-suit mediation, as mandated by the Commercial Courts Act, applies in a context involving urgent interim relief in intellectual property infringement matters.

Summary of the Judgment

The Madras High Court dismissed both applications filed by the fifth defendant. It held that:

• The plaintiff's suit, filed under Section 62 of the Copyright Act alongside the Original Side Rules, was maintainable because a substantial part of the cause of action arose in Chennai—within the Court’s jurisdiction.
• Clause 12 of the Letters Patent validly empowered the Court to grant leave to sue the applicant/fifth defendant, even though its registered office is located in Mumbai.
• The doctrine of election does not preclude the plaintiff from concurrently invoking both statutory remedies (Section 62 and Clause 12) in a single suit, provided the entire cause of action is not split between two separate proceedings.
• The Court further rejected the contention regarding the non-institution of pre-suit mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, noting that in cases involving intellectual property rights, the urgency and continuing harm from infringement justify bypassing mediation steps.

In conclusion, the Court confirmed that its jurisdiction was properly invoked on the basis of the cause of action’s locality—even if the defendant was primarily based elsewhere—and accordingly allowed the suit to proceed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court’s decision referred to several precedents that played a pivotal role in shaping the legal reasoning:

• Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia and Another (10 SCC 161, 2015): This decision was leveraged to explain that the statutory provisions of the Copyright Act, even including its procedural language, do not preclude alternate jurisdictions provided under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) or the Letters Patent. It reinforces the notion that the existence of a statutory remedy does not extinguish the applicability of additional remedies based on territorial considerations.
• Nagubai Ammal and Others v. B. Shama Rao and Others (AIR 1956 SC 593): Although cited by the applicant’s counsel for suggesting the doctrine of election, the Court clarified that this decision did not bind the present facts, as the election principle applies only when two separate suits are filed by a party on the same cause of action. In this case, only one suit was instituted despite invoking dual statutory bases.
• Other decisions including the judgments from Duro Flex Pvt. Ltd. v. Duroflex Sittings System (AIR 2015 Mad 30) and Sulphur Mills Ltd. v. M/s. Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd., etc. These cases supported the proposition that in intellectual property disputes, especially those involving copyright infringement, the primary focus must be on the urgency of prevention of further harm. They underscored the necessity of granting interim injunctions without requiring complete adherence to pre-suit mediation.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was methodical and layered, reflecting on both statutory interpretation and equitable considerations:

• Jurisdictional Nexus: The Court emphasized that although the applicant/fifth defendant is based in Mumbai, the majority of the relevant contractual and creative acts—such as film production, artist agreements, and release events—occurred in Chennai. This fact established the necessary connection to the Court’s jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
• Dual Remedial Framework: The judgment clarified that a suit may concurrently invoke Section 62 of the Copyright Act and rely on Clause 12 as an additional remedy. The Court held that such a dual approach does not trigger the doctrine of election because the plaintiff did not file separate suits for the same cause of action.
• Urgency and Interim Relief: In light of the rapid dissemination of allegedly infringing material (via platforms such as YouTube and Netflix), the Court gave weight to the principle of preventing continuous harm, thus justifying a waiver of the pre-suit mediation requirement. This rationale is especially pertinent in cases involving intellectual property rights where public interest in safeguarding creative content is paramount.

Impact on Future Cases

This judgment is likely to have profound implications:

• Clarification of Jurisdictional Limits: The decision underscores that a significant part of the cause of action occurring within a Court’s local jurisdiction is sufficient to grant leave to sue, even when the defendant’s registered office is elsewhere. This clarity allows litigants to more confidently file suits in forums where crucial events took place.
• Concurrent Use of Statutory Remedies: By rejecting the strict application of the doctrine of election, the ruling opens the door for plaintiffs to utilize both statutory remedies simultaneously, which may encourage broader approaches in intellectual property litigation.
• Pre-suit Mediation in IP Cases: The judgment provides a precedent that pre-suit mediation does not automatically bar interim relief applications in urgent intellectual property disputes, potentially influencing how future courts balance procedural requirements against the need for prompt judicial intervention.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several complex legal doctrines play a central role in this judgment. Here is a simplified explanation:

• Clause 12 of the Letters Patent: This clause empowers the Madras High Court to hear cases where part of the cause of action took place within its geographical jurisdiction. In simple terms, if a significant portion of the facts leading to a dispute happened in a particular area, the Court in that area can adjudicate the matter even if one of the parties is located elsewhere.
• Doctrine of Election: This legal doctrine typically prevents a party from choosing two different remedies for the same legal harm in separate suits. However, in this instance, because the plaintiff combined both statutory bases in a single suit, the doctrine did not apply.
• Pre-suit Mediation Requirement: Some statutes require parties to attempt mediation before heading to court. The Court recognized that in extremely urgent matters—especially where copyright infringement continues to cause ongoing harm—courts may waive this requirement.

Conclusion

The judgment in Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v. Wunderbar Films Private Limited sets an important precedent by confirming that jurisdiction can be established under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent when a major part of the cause of action occurs in the Court’s territory. The decision also clarifies that a plaintiff may rely on dual statutory remedies concurrently without being thwarted by the doctrine of election. Furthermore, the Court’s approach to urgent interim relief in intellectual property disputes underscores the need for balanced judicial intervention where the public interest and the protection of creative works are at stake.

In essence, the decision not only refines the legal framework governing cross-jurisdictional disputes but also provides valuable guidance for litigants and practitioners involved in copyright and intellectual property litigation in the future.