Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Novartis Ag And Another – Appellant
Versus
Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt. Ltd. And Another – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral). - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present suit has been filed by Plaintiff No. 1-Novartis AG. and Plaintiff No.2-Novartis Healthcare Pvt. Limited seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement in respect of their granted patent, being Patent No.233161 (hereinafter "suit patent") which relates to the invention 'bis-monoethanolamine salt of eltrombopag'. As per the Plaintiff, the same was granted protection as a New Chemical Entity (NCE). The said invention is referred to by the name 'Eltrombopag Olamine' which is the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) in the Plaintiffs' commercially manufactured and sold drug under the brand name 'Revolade' in India.
3. The suit patent was granted on 27th March, 2009 and the date ofpriority for the suit patent is 21st May, 2003. Thus, the term of the patent is set to expire on 21st May, 2023. Revolade, containing 'Eltrombopag Olamine', is stated to be approved in more than 90 countries and regions for the treatment of chronic immune (idiopathic) thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP). 'Eltrombopag Olamine' is stated to raise the platelet count in patients with ITP a plastic anemia and ci
Acknowledgment of patent rights by the Defendants and their undertaking not to infringe, permissible use for research and development under Section 107-A of the Patent Act, 1970
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to issue a permanent injunction against patent infringement based on the Defendant's undertaking and lack of manufacture o....
Court ruled that habitual infringement of trademarks in pharmaceuticals demands strict judicial action, including severe penalties and compliance oversight.
The judgment establishes the principle that violation of injunction orders and patent infringement can lead to contempt of court under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC.
The court held that patent holders are entitled to protection against infringement, confirming that the Department's public notice does not imply authorization to infringe patent rights.
The scope of patent claims is defined by the claims themselves; any pharmaceutical composition containing the claimed ingredients constitutes infringement, regardless of the specific formulation.
Court emphasizes that prior use and goodwill in trade names give rise to rights that protect against passing off and copyright infringement.
Patent is prima facie invalid due to prior claiming and non-working, infringing on patent system integrity by prolonging monopoly post-expiration.
Willful disobedience is required for contempt under Order XXXIX Rule 2A; inadvertent actions do not suffice to establish contempt.
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
