IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Novartis Ag & Anr. - Appellantss
Versus
Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - Respondents
CS (Comm) 501/2021 & I.A. 13256/2021
Decided On : 07-04-2022
Patent Infringement - Pharmaceutical Patent - Patent Act, 1970 - Section 107-A
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing their granted patent for the drug 'Eltrombopag Olamine'. The Defendants were found to have submitted a proposal for the supply of tablets containing the patented product in a tender process. The Defendants acknowledged the Plaintiffs' patent rights and undertook not to manufacture or sell any infringing product.
Finding of the Court:
The Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs, granting permanent injunction till the expiry of the patent term. However, it allowed the Defendants to use the product for research or development purposes in accordance with Section 107-A of the Patent Act, 1970.
Issues: Infringement of pharmaceutical patent, acknowledgment of patent rights by the Defendants, permissible use for research and development under Section 107-A of the Patent Act, 1970
Ratio Decidendi: 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
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in favor of the Plaintiffs, granting permanent injunction till the expiry of the patent term, with allowance for research and development use by the Defendants. No costs were awarded.
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 cirrhosis due to chronic hepatitis C during interferon therapy. Promacta, the brand under which 'Eltrombopag Olamine' is sold in the US, is stated to have been approved in 2008 by US FDA and has been approved in India by the Central Drug Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) in 2010 for the treatment of ITP. Further, the Plaintiffs' product is claimed to be the first orally-used small molecular, thrombopoietin receptor agonist and is also sold in India as a prescription drug in different dosage strength. The product sold under the mark Revolade is shown to have large sales in India to the tune of Rs.700-800 million annually with the global sales figures to the tune of $ 1,700 million in 2020.
4. The Defendants in the present case are Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd and Metrochem Api Private Limited. In September, 2021, while participating in a tender process floated by Odisha State Medical Corporation Limited (OSMCL) for the procurement of various drugs, including 'Eltrombopag Olamine', the Plaintiffs came to know that the Defendants had submitted a proposal for the supply of tablets containing the patented product.
5. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that in the said tender process, the Defendant No.1 had filed a document stating that it had obtained manufacturing and marketing approval for tablets containing 'Eltrombopag Olamine'. The Defendant no. 1 had further declared that it had manufacturing capacity for manufacturing 225 million tablets of drug containing 'Eltrombopag Olamine' monthly. An independent investigating agency was engaged by the Plaintiffs in order to verify the said information. In report that was submitted, it was averred that both Defendant No. 1 & 2 have license to manufacture 'Eltrombopag Olamine'. Thereafter, the present suit was filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants.
6. Vide order dated 11th January, 2022, owing to the judgment passed by the ld. Single Judge in CS (COMM) 256/2021 titled Novartis AG v. NATCO Pharma Limited, an ad interim injunction was granted. The relevant part of order is set out below:
"11. The issue on merit stands covered by my recent decision in Novartis AG' v. Natco Pharma Ltd. as the plaintiff's rights to suit patent IN 161 have been confirmed and it has been held that manufacture or marketing by any entity of Eltrombopag Olamine would infringe the suit patent.
12. In view thereof, a clear prima facie case exists in favour of the plaintiff.
13. Till the next date of hearing, therefore, the defendants, their agents or all other persons acting on their behalf, including their dealers and distributors, shall stand restrained from manufacturing, marketing, selling, importing or exporting or otherwise dealing in Eltrombopag Olamine, being the subject matter of suit patent IN 161 held by the plaintif
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.