Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal, JJ.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. - Respondent
FAO(OS) (COMM) 139/2020, CMs No. 28068/2020 (for placing on record additional documents), 28070/2020 (for stay) & 32664/2020 (of Natco Pharma Limited for intervention) with FAO(OS) (COMM) 140/2020 & CMs No. 28072/2020 (for placing on record additional documents) & 28074/2020 (for stay), FAO(OS) (COMM) 155/2020 & CMs No. 30695/2020 (for placing on record additional documents), 30696/2020 (for exemption) & 30697/2020 (for stay), FAO(OS) (COMM) 156/2020 & CMs No. 30698/2020 (for placing on record additional documents), 30699/2020 (for exemption) & 30700/2020 (for stay), FAO(OS) (COMM) 157/2020 & CMs No. 30701/2020 (for placing on record additional documents), 30702/2020 (for exemption), 30703/2020 (for stay) & 1153/2021 (of Shiv Shivam Pharma & Ors. for intervention), FAO(OS) (COMM) 158/2020 & CMs No. 30704/2020 (for placing on record additional documents), 30705/2020 (for exemption) & 30706/2020 (for stay), FAO(OS) (COMM) 159/2020 & CMs No. 30707/2020 (for placing on record additional documents), 30708/2020 (for exemption) & 30709/2020 (for stay), FAO(OS) (COMM) 160/2020 & CMs No. 30710/2020 (for placing on record additional documents), 30711/2020 (for exemption) & 30712/2020 (for stay), FAO(OS) (COMM) 161/2020 & CMs No. 30713/2020 (for placing on record additional documents), 30714/2020 (for exemption) & 30715/2020 (for stay)
Decided On : 20-07-2021
The appellants/plaintiffs, in the suits from which these appeals arise, claimed infringement by the respondent(s)/defendant(s) of both, IN 147 and IN 625. The appellants/plaintiffs are deemed to have admitted DAPA as the subject matter of both, IN 147 and IN 625. With respect to one invention, there can be only one patent. The appellants/plaintiffs herein however, while claiming one invention only i.e. DAPA, are claiming two patents with respect thereto, with infringement of both, by the respondent(s)/defendant(s). The same alone, in our view, strikes at the very root of the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs and disentitles the appellants/plaintiffs from any interim relief.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants/plaintiffs, AstraZeneca AB, Sweden and AstraZeneca Pharma India Ltd. filed nine appeals, under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), impugning the orders/judgments of denial of interim relief, in suits instituted by them for permanent injunction restraining infringement of patent and for ancillary reliefs.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appellants/plaintiffs, in the suits from which these appeals arise, claimed infringement by the respondent(s)/defendant(s) of both, IN 147 and IN 625. The appellants/plaintiffs are deemed to have admitted DAPA as the subject matter of both, IN 147 and IN 625. With respect to one invention, there can be only one patent. The appellants/plaintiffs herein however, while claiming one invention only i.e. DAPA, are claiming two patents with respect thereto, with infringement of both, by the respondent(s)/defendant(s). The same alone, in our view, strikes at the very root of the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs and disentitles the appellants/plaintiffs from any interim relief.
Issues: Whether the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to interim injunction restraining infringement of patent and for ancillary reliefs.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the appellants/plaintiffs, in the suits from which these appeals arise, claimed infringement by the respondent(s)/defendant(s) of both, IN 147 and IN 625. The appellants/plaintiffs are deemed to have admitted DAPA as the subject matter of both, IN 147 and IN 625. With respect to one invention, there can be only one patent. The appellants/plaintiffs herein however, while claiming one invention only i.e. DAPA, are claiming two patents with respect thereto, with infringement of both, by the respondent(s)/defendant(s). The same alone, in our view, strikes at the very root of the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs and disentitles the appellants/plaintiffs from any interim relief.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals, with costs assessed at Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondent(s)/defendant(s) in each of the suits.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - All these nine appeals, under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), impugn the orders/judgments of denial of interim relief, in suits instituted by the appellants/plaintiffs i.e. (i) AstraZeneca AB, Sweden and (ii) AstraZeneca Pharma India Ltd. against the respondent(s)/defendant(s) in each of the appeals, for permanent injunction restraining infringement of patent and for ancillary reliefs.
2. FAO(OS)(COMM) 139/2020 and FAO(OS)(COMM) 140/2020 impugn the common order/judgment dated 2nd November, 2020 in CS(COMM) No.410/2020 and in CS(COMM) No.411/2020 filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Alkem Laboratories Ltd. respectively.
3. FAO(OS)(COMM) 155/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 156/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 157/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 158/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 159/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 160/2020 and FAO(OS)(COMM) 161/2020 impugn the common order/judgment dated 18th November, 2020 in suits filed by the same appellants/plaintiffs, being (i) CS(COMM) No.323/2020 against Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; (ii) CS(COMM) No.346/2020 against Micro Labs Limited; (iii) CS(COM) No.414/2020 against Zydus Healthcare Ltd. and Zydus Medica; (iv) CS(COMM) No.418/202 against Eris Lifesciences Ltd.; (v) CS(COMM) No.419/2020 against USV Pvt. Ltd.; (vi) CS(COMM) No.426/2020 against MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.; and, (vii) CS(COMM) No.154/2020 against Ajanta Pharma Ltd.
4. It would thus be seen, that the challenge in these nine appeals is to two orders/judgments; both the orders/judgments were pronounced within a span of 16 days, with both, independently of each other, on the same facts, concluding that the appellants/plaintiffs, during the pendency of the suits for permanent injunction to restrain infringement of patent, are not entitled to any interim injunction restraining respondent(s)/defendant(s) from manufacturing and selling the pharmaceutical products which are alleged to be in breach of the patent of the appellants/plaintiffs.
5. From the proximity of the dates of the impugned orders/judgments, it appears that the hearing on the applications for interim injunction, before both the Hon'ble Judges, took place simultaneously. It is inexplicable, why the appellants/plaintiffs, who have argued all these nine appeals as one and not separately, did not have the two sets of suits clubbed before the same Commercial Division and which would have saved the judicial time spent in the adjudication undertaken by one of the Judges. It appears that the appellants/plaintiffs were taking a chance, of arguing on the same subject and controversy, before two Courts. However the appellants/plaintiffs failed before both.
6. The suits, from which FAO(OS)(COMM) 139/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 140/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 158/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 160/2020 and FAO(OS)(COMM) 161/2020 arise, were filed first, to restrain the respondent(s)/defendant(s) therein from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing in any manner whatsoever, the product comprising the compound 'Dapagliflozin' (hereinafter for convenience referred to as 'DAPA' ), which was the subject matter of Indian Patent No.205147 (hereinafter for convenience referred to as 'IN 147') and Indian Patent No.235625 (hereinafter for convenience referred to as 'IN 625') and for other ancillary reliefs.
7. The suits, from which FAO(OS)(COMM) 155/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 156/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 157/2020 and FAO(OS)(COMM) 159/2020 arise, were filed subsequently, after lapsing of the validity of IN 147, to restrain the respondent(s)/defendant(s) therein from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing in any manner whatsoever, the product comprising the compound DAPA, amounting to infringement of IN 625.
8. The impugned order/judgment dated 2nd November, 2020 records the case/claim of the appellants/plaintiffs to be, (i) that both, IN 147 and IN 625 were granted to Bristol Myers Squibb Company, which vide Assignment De
Interim injunctions in patent cases require a prima facie case; valid disclosure of patents must be clear, and a patentee cannot claim multiple patents for the same invention without significant diff....
Validity of specific patents is upheld while assessing distinctions between coverage and disclosure, emphasizing protection of intellectual property rights against infringement.
Intellectual Property right - Infringement of Indian patents - It is also a well settled position in law that damages are entirely insufficient as panacea for holder of a valid patent, which is infri....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive rights of the patent holder to prevent infringement under Section 48 of the Patents Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
