SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Del) 722

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Fmc Corporation & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Natco Pharma Limited - Respondent
Interlocutory Application No. 2594 of 2020, 2595 of 2020, 2596 of 2020 4274 of 2020, 5209 of 2020; Civil Suit (Comm) No. 611 of 2019
Decided On : 15-07-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Sudhir Chandra, Advocate, Pravin Anand, Advocate, Dhruv Anand, Advocate, Udita Michelle Patro, Advocate, Devinder Rawat, Advocate, J. Sai Deepak, Advocate, G. Natraj, Advocate, Avinash K Sharma, Advocate

Headnote:

The court decided on multiple applications filed in a commercial suit involving patent infringement. The applications included requests to amend the pleadings, return the plaint, and stay the proceedings. The court allowed the amendments to the pleadings, finding that they were necessary to ensure proper trial of the suit and did not cause undue prejudice to the defendant. The court rejected the request to return the plaint, finding that the suit was properly instituted in the court and that the defendant's objections could be addressed at trial. The court also rejected the request to stay the proceedings, finding that the pendency of a related suit in another court did not warrant a stay in the present case.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs, holders of patents for a molecule known as Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR), filed a suit against the defendant, alleging infringement of the patents. The defendant filed several applications, including requests to amend the pleadings, return the plaint, and stay the proceedings. The court considered these applications and issued its decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the plaintiffs' request to amend the pleadings, finding that the amendments were necessary to ensure proper trial of the suit and did not cause undue prejudice to the defendant. The court rejected the defendant's request to return the plaint, finding that the suit was properly instituted in the court and that the defendant's objections could be addressed at trial. The court also rejected the defendant's request to stay the proceedings, finding that the pendency of a related suit in another court did not warrant a stay in the present case.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs could amend their pleadings after the initial filing. 2. Whether the suit was properly instituted in the court. 3. Whether the proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of a related suit in another court.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Amendments to pleadings are allowed to ensure proper trial of the suit and do not cause undue prejudice to the other party. 2. A suit is properly instituted in a court if the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties involved. 3. A stay of proceedings is not warranted merely because a related suit is pending in another court.

Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiffs' request to amend the pleadings, rejected the defendant's request to return the plaint, and rejected the defendant's request to stay the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

C .Hari Shankar, J. - This order decides I.A. 2594/2020, I.A. 2595/2020, IA 2596/2020, I.A. 4274/2020 and I.A. 5209/2020, preferred in CS (COMM.) 611/2019. I.A. 2594/2020, I.A. 2595/2020 and I.A. 2596/2020 have been preferred by the defendant, under Section 26 (2), read with Order VI Rule 15A, Order VII Rule 11 and Section 10, read with Order VII Rule 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the CPC"), respectively, whereas I.A. 4274/2020 and I.A. 5209/2020 have been preferred by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

2. Cs (COMM.) 611/2019, filed by the plaintiffs, alleges infringement, by the defendant, of Indian Patent No. IN 201307 (hereinafter referred to as "IN 307"), registered by the plaintiff in respect of a molecule which is known by the generic name ''Chlorantraniliprole'', and is also, apparently for the sake of convenience, denoted as "CTPR", and Indian Patent No. IN 213332 (hereinafter referred to as "IN 332"), covering "A Process for Preparing a Compound of Formula 1" which covered, inter alia, the process of making CTPR. Accordingly, it seeks a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from infringing the said patents, and also claims damages. The prayer clause, in the plaint, reads thus:

"In light of the above facts and circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to grant the following reliefs in favour of the Plaintiffs:

a. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its directors, employees, officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on their behalf from making, using, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale, and in any other manner, directly or indirectly, dealing in any product that infringes the claimed subject matter of the Plaintiffs'' Indian Patent No. 201307 or any of the claims thereof, including Chlorantraniliprole, and any forms thereof;

b. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its directors, employees, officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on its behalf from using, directly or indirectly, any of the processes claimed under Indian Patent No. 213332;

c. An order for damages in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant as stated hereinabove; or

d. An order requiring the Defendant to render accounts of all sums earned by the Defendant through their unlawful and infringing activities referred to in this plaint and a decree for the same in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant;

e. An order for costs in the proceedings; and

f. Any order(s) as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Para 36 of the plaint avers that the plaintiff learnt, recently, of a suit, having been filed by the defendant before the City Civil Court in Hyderabad, for a declaration of non-infringement in respect of IN 307 and IN 332, and for a declaration that CTPR is covered by the written description of certain prior patents, which constitutes "prior art" and is, therefore, in the public domain, available to anyone who seeks to commercially deal therein. The said civil suit, numbered OS 867/2019, was filed, before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by the defendant, on 20th September, 2019, and impleads, as the defendants therein, E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. (the original patentee in respect of the CTPR suit patent, of whom the plaintiff claims to be an assignee, in respect thereof), as well as the present plaintiffs. It is averred, in the said plaint, that CTPR was disclosed in United States Patent 5998424 (US 424), US Patent 6020357 (US 357) and PCT International Publication WO 01/70671 (WO 71), much prior to the priority date of IN 307 and IN 332 which, therefore, constituted "prior art". The cause of action, for filing the said suit, as disclosed in para 46 thereof, is the awareness, obtained by the plaintiff therein (i.e. the defendant in the present proceedings) of IN 307 and IN 332, and th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top