Since 2018 a commercial suit in India — which includes every intellectual property suit above a modest value — must be preceded by an attempt at mediation, unless it asks for urgent interim relief. For years the requirement was treated as a formality and the exception as a formula. The Supreme Court has ended both habits: the requirement is mandatory and a plaint filed without it is rejected, and the urgency claimed must be real.
Quick reference
| Applies to | Commercial suits, including all IP suits, valued above ₹3 lakh |
| Exception | A suit that contemplates urgent interim relief |
| Consequence of skipping | Rejection of the plaint — for suits filed after 20 August 2022 |
| Who mediates | The authority under the Legal Services Authorities Act, through its mediation centres |
| Time | Three months from the application, extendable by two with consent |
| Settlement | Has the status of an arbitral award on agreed terms — enforceable as a decree |
| No settlement | A non-settlement or non-starter report, which is filed with the plaint |
The requirement
A suit that does not contemplate any urgent interim relief may not be instituted unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedy of pre-institution mediation. The Supreme Court held in Patil Automation (2022) that the word “shall” means what it says: the requirement is mandatory, and a plaint filed without compliance is to be rejected at the threshold, without the court examining the merits. The court made the rule prospective from 20 August 2022; for suits filed earlier, and in 2025 the court confirmed this, the plaint is not rejected but the suit is kept in abeyance while the parties are sent to mediation.
The requirement applies to the plaintiff. A defendant filing a counter-claim has been held by some High Courts to be bound by it as well; the point is not fully settled.
The exception, and how it is tested
A suit that contemplates urgent interim relief is exempt. Almost every intellectual property plaint asks for an interim injunction, and for a time that was enough. In Yamini Manohar (2023) the Supreme Court held that it is not: the plaintiff cannot bypass mediation merely by praying for interim relief, and the court must examine the plaint, the documents and the facts to decide whether urgent interim relief is genuinely contemplated. Where the claimed urgency is a device — a plaintiff that sat on the infringement for a year and now asks for an ex parte order — the exemption fails and the plaint goes.
Two consequences for intellectual property plaintiffs. The plaint must show urgency: when the infringement was discovered, why it is continuing, what harm each day’s delay does. And the plaintiff’s own conduct is relevant — a long history of warning letters followed by silence undercuts it. Courts have accepted that continuing infringement is inherently urgent, so a plaintiff who acts promptly on discovering it is on safe ground; one who did not needs an explanation.
A plaintiff who wants to preserve both options can start mediation and, if the infringement escalates during it, file with the non-settlement report and a claim for urgent relief.
The procedure
The plaintiff applies to the authority notified for pre-institution mediation — the Legal Services Authority for the district or the state, through its mediation centre — with the application, the fee and a brief statement of the dispute. The authority issues notice to the opposite party. If the opposite party does not appear after notice, the authority records the mediation as a non-starter, and the plaintiff files that report with the plaint. If it appears, the mediator convenes sessions — in person or online — and the process must be completed within three months, extendable by two months with both parties’ consent. The proceedings are confidential and without prejudice; nothing said can be used in the suit.
If the parties settle, the settlement is written, signed by both and the mediator, and has the status of an arbitral award on agreed terms — enforceable as a decree of court without a suit. If they do not, the authority issues a non-settlement report, and the plaintiff files with it.
Which authority
The application goes to the authority with jurisdiction over the place where the suit would be filed. Where that is the plaintiff’s home court under the trademark and copyright provisions, the local Legal Services Authority there is the venue, and the High Courts have confirmed that the mediation need not be held where the defendant is. The Delhi High Court’s mediation centre, Samadhan, and the equivalents attached to other High Courts and district courts, handle the bulk of intellectual property mediations.
Mediation and the Mediation Act
The Mediation Act 2023 has established a general framework for mediation in India, but pre-litigation mediation under it is voluntary, and it has not displaced the commercial courts requirement, which continues to govern commercial suits. Institutional mediation — through court-annexed centres, the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution or private institutions — satisfies the requirement where the authority has been notified for the purpose.
Why it suits IP disputes
Mediation is easy to treat as a hurdle. For a good share of intellectual property disputes it is the right outcome. Trademark conflicts between honest businesses resolve into coexistence agreements — who uses what, where, in what form — that no court could order. Licensing disputes turn on money and terms that a mediator can broker. Design and copyright disputes between a former supplier and customer are commercial relationships in need of a settlement, not a judgment. And the settlement is enforceable, confidential and final within months, where the suit would take years and end in an appealable decree.
Where the other side is a counterfeiter, a squatter or a deliberate copyist, mediation is a waste of time, and the urgent-relief route exists for exactly those cases. The skill is in telling the two apart honestly at the outset.
Frequently asked questions
Is mediation mandatory before filing an IP suit in India? Yes, for a commercial suit — which includes every IP suit above ₹3 lakh — unless the suit contemplates urgent interim relief. The Supreme Court has held the requirement mandatory, and a plaint filed without it after 20 August 2022 is rejected.
Can I avoid mediation by asking for an interim injunction? Only if the urgency is genuine. The court examines the plaint and documents to decide whether urgent interim relief is really contemplated. A prayer for an injunction added to bypass mediation, especially after long delay, does not qualify.
How long does pre-litigation mediation take? Up to three months from the application, extendable by two months with the consent of both parties. If the other side does not appear, a non-starter report issues sooner.
What happens if the other party refuses to mediate? The authority records a non-starter report, which the plaintiff files with the plaint. The requirement is to attempt mediation, not to succeed.
Is a mediated settlement enforceable? Yes. A settlement under the commercial courts mediation rules has the status of an arbitral award on agreed terms and is enforceable as a decree of court.
Where is the mediation held? Before the Legal Services Authority for the place where the suit would be filed — including the plaintiff’s home court for trademark and copyright suits — through its mediation centre, in person or online.
Useful official resources
- National Legal Services Authority — the authorities that conduct pre-institution mediation
- Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (Samadhan) — the Delhi centre
See our related notes on where to file an IP suit, interim injunctions and cease-and-desist letters.
Deciding whether a dispute belongs in mediation or needs an urgent order? Talk to us.