Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of patent No. 222346 granted under The Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in favour of plaintiff No. 1, rendition of accounts/damages, delivery-up etc. By this order I propose to decide the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.

2. Two plaintiffs have filed the present suit against Cipla Ltd. The plaintiff No. 1 (the expression includes predecessor in business and title), Novartis AG is a company incorporated under the laws of Switzerland. The plaintiff No. 2 (the expression includes predecessor in business and title) Novartis Healthcare Pvt. Limited is a company incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Sandoz House, Shiv Sagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018.

Case of the Plaintiff as per Plaint:

3.(i) The plaintiff No. 1 is one of the famous companies in the world carrying on business through its affiliates and subsidiaries, inter alia, of manufacturing, marketing, research and development of high quality pharmaceutical preparations. Plaintiff No. 2 is one of the Novartis group companies ultimately held by plaintiff No. 1.

(ii) Lupin Ltd. is marketing products containing INDACATEROL, specifically INDACATEROL Maleate, which is the subject matter of the present suit patent under distribution and co-promotion agreement dated 22nd March 2012 with plaintiff No. 2.

(iii) It is alleged inter alia in para 4 of the plaint that the plaintiff No. 1, or its predecessor companies, has been in the business of research, development, manufacture and sale of various pharmaceutical products for a period of more than 250 years. The plaintiff No. 1 develops, manufactures and distributes hundreds of healthcare products in more than 150 countries. The plaintiff No. 1, along with the development of various pharmaceutical products, has also conducted countless clinical trials on its products. The plaintiff No. 1 is strongly committed to research and development in order to invent new pharmaceutical products and plaintiff No. 1 spent USD 7.2 billion on pharmaceutical research and development in 2013 as has been published in the Annual Report of plaintiff No. 1 for the year 2013.

(iv) It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff No. 1 is particularly engaged in ongoing research, invention, development and creation of various products and has acquired a worldwide reputation for safe and high quality pharmaceutical products, including drugs for the treatment of respiratory diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The products emanating from the plaintiffs are internationally known for their superior, high quality and technical excellence.

(v) It is mentioned in the plaint that the plaintiff No. 1 initiated its research program in the late 1990 for providing a maintenance therapy to maintain maximal bronchodilation throughout the day in patients with COPD. This would prevent the product needing to be repeatedly dosed. Hence, the product needed to provide long duration of action, preferably on single dose basis (as opposed to a rescue therapy which would have a fast onset but shorter duration of action). The plaintiff No. 1 claims that the plaintiff invented a New Chemical Entity (NCE) which is the subject matter of the present suit patent and is known with the International Non-Proprietary Name (INN) of INDACATEROL. This INN was published in the list of recommended INNs in 2005 by WHO (World Health Organisation). International Non-proprietary Names (INN) are names designated by the WHO which are given to new Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) to provide a unique name per pharmaceutical drug to help avoid the confusion that can be caused by the number of different ways in which an API can be chemically named based on their