Back
Grants to Incyte Against Melody Healthcare Over Ruxolitinib Patent
The has issued an restraining from manufacturing, selling, or exporting any pharmaceutical product containing Ruxolitinib, a compound used to treat myelofibrosis. The order, passed by Justice Vikas Mahajan on , protects ’s Indian Patent No. 269841, which remains valid and subsisting until . The court found that Incyte had made out a and that the strongly favoured the patent holder, as Melody Healthcare had not yet commercially launched its generic version.
Background: The Patent and the Alleged Infringement
Ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor, was first launched in the United States in 2011 under the trademark JAKAFI by Incyte, and subsequently in India in 2013 under the trademark JAKAVI by the Indian affiliate. The patent in suit, Indian Patent No. 269841, covers the compound Ruxolitinib and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts, including Ruxolitinib Phosphate. Incyte’s suit alleged that Melody Healthcare had listed “Ruxolitinib Phosphate” in its commercial API product list and was also listed as a supplier on , a third‑party interactive commercial platform. According to Incyte, such advertising, listing, and offering for sale amounted to an “” under , which grants the patentee the exclusive right to prevent third parties from offering for sale the patented product.
Incyte further relied on a private investigation report dated , which confirmed that Melody Healthcare had obtained a manufacturing licence for Ruxolitinib/Ruxolitinib Phosphate API from the . The report stated that Melody had developed a generic version of the API in‑house and intended to commence commercial manufacturing or stockpiling. These facts, the court noted, established a clear threat of infringement.
The Court’s Findings: and
Justice Vikas Mahajan, after considering the pleadings and the investigation report, held that Incyte had demonstrated a strong . The court observed: “The is also in favour of an being passed since they have a valid and subsisting patent, the term of which has not yet expired whereas the defendants are yet to commercially launch their product.” This reasoning is critical in patent infringement matters, where courts must weigh the patentee’s right to exclusive use against the defendant’s potential loss from being kept out of the market. Here, the absence of any commercial launch by Melody tipped the scales decisively.
The court further stated: “I am satisfied that the plaintiffs will suffer an if interim relief is not granted till the next date of hearing.” is a key requirement for an , and the court’s satisfaction underscores the serious nature of the alleged infringement, particularly given the patent’s remaining term of just over two years. An injunction now would prevent Melody from eroding the patent’s market value before expiry.
Scope of the Injunction: Beyond the Defendant Itself
The injunction is broad, extending not only to Melody Healthcare but also to its directors, group companies, sister concerns, associates, divisions, assigns in business, licensees, franchisees, agents, distributors, and dealers. They are all “restrained from dealing in pharmaceutical drug products containing Ruxolitinib alone, in combination with another compound or in any other form, where such conduct amounts to infringement of Indian Patent No. 269841.” This wide net ensures that any entity acting in concert with Melody cannot circumvent the order. It also serves as a deterrent to other potential infringers in the generic pharmaceutical space who might consider launching a product before a patent expires.
Legal Implications: “” Under Section 48
A notable aspect of the case is Incyte’s reliance on the “” provision in Section 48 of the Patents Act. The court accepted that merely listing a product on a commercial platform or advertising it for sale, even without actual sales, can constitute infringement. This interpretation aligns with recent Indian jurisprudence that broadens the scope of patentee rights to include pre‑commercial activities that amount to an invitation to treat. For legal practitioners, the case reinforces the need for generic manufacturers to exercise caution before even publicly indicating an intention to supply a patented product, especially when the patent remains in force.
Impact on the Pharmaceutical Industry
This sends a strong signal to the Indian generic pharmaceutical industry about the courts’ willingness to protect innovator patents that are still within their term. With Ruxolitinib being a blockbuster drug for myelofibrosis, any delay in market entry for a generic version can have significant financial repercussions for the patent holder. Conversely, it also highlights the risks for generic companies that seek to position themselves for a launch immediately after patent expiry. The court’s emphasis on the absence of a commercial launch by the defendant suggests that even preparatory steps like obtaining a manufacturing licence and developing an in‑house generic version can trigger an injunction if they are perceived as steps towards infringement.
The case also underscores the importance of maintaining robust patent enforcement strategies. Incyte’s proactive monitoring—through private investigators—and swift legal action allowed it to secure relief before Melody could commence actual sales. For in‑house counsel, this demonstrates the value of investing in early detection of potential infringers.
Next Steps and Conclusion
The matter is scheduled for a hearing before the Joint Registrar on for completion of service and pleadings, and will be listed before the court on . Until then, the injunction remains in force. Melody Healthcare will have an opportunity to file a response and seek vacation of the order, but given the strength of Incyte’s and the short remaining patent term, the outcome appears tilted in favour of the patentee.
For legal professionals, this judgment serves as a practical illustration of the principles governing ex parte injunctions in patent cases: a valid and subsisting patent, likelihood of infringement, , and . It also clarifies that an “” under Section 48 can encompass listing on third‑party platforms, a scenario increasingly relevant in the digital age. The ’s willingness to grant interim relief in such cases will likely encourage patent holders to assert their rights more aggressively, potentially leading to more pre‑emptive litigation before patent expiry.
