Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jayant Nath, J.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Ireland Unlimited Company - Appellant
Versus
Micro Labs Limited - Respondent
CS(COMM) 302 of 2021
Decided On : 16-08-2021
Patent Infringement - Patents Act - Section 25(1), 25(2), 48 - The court discussed the infringement of the suit patent, the exclusive rights of the plaintiffs under Section 48 of the Patents Act, and the previous interim injunctions granted in favor of the plaintiffs. The court also considered the pending revocation petitions and the defendant's intention to launch a generic 'Apixaban' product during the subsistence of the suit patent.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought an ad interim injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing the registered patent (Patent No. 247381) related to lactam-containing compounds and derivatives used as anticoagulant agents. The defendant admitted its intention to launch the generic 'Apixaban' product during the subsistence of the suit patent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had the exclusive right to prevent infringement of the suit patent under Section 48 of the Patents Act. The court also noted the previous interim injunctions granted in favor of the plaintiffs and the pending revocation petitions.
Issues: The issues included the infringement of the suit patent, the exclusive rights of the plaintiffs, and the defendant's intention to launch a generic 'Apixaban' product during the subsistence of the suit patent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the exclusive rights of the plaintiffs under Section 48 of the Patents Act and the previous interim injunctions granted in favor of the plaintiffs to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using, making, selling, distributing, advertising, marketing, exporting, offering for sale, or recalling the impugned generic products infringing the suit patent.
JUDGMENT
Jayant Nath, J. (Oral)
This hearing is conducted through video conferencing.
IA No.7681/2021
1. The present application is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking an ad interim injunction to restrain the defendant, its directors, etc. from infringing the registered patent of the plaintiffs being Patent No. 247381.
2. The accompanying suit is filed for permanent injunction to restrain infringement of the suit patent, disclosure & delivery, damages, etc. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the patent in question was granted in favour of plaintiff No. 1 which relates generally to lactam-containing compounds and derivatives thereof which are inhibitors of trypsin-like serine protease enzymes, especially Factor Xa, pharmaceutical compositions containing the same, and methods of using the same as anticoagulant agents for treatment, of thromboembolic disorders is called `Apixaban'. It has been pointed out that the suit patent has not been subjected to any pre-grant or post grant opposition under Section 25(1) and 25(2) of the Patents Act. One Natco Pharma Ltd. had filed a petition seeking revocation of the said suit patent on 09.05.2016 which is pending adjudication. Revocation petitions have also been filed by BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. on 17.12.2019 and Micro Labs Ltd., the defendant herein, recently.
3. The said suit patent covers, a molecule having an International Non-Proprietary Name (INN) APIXABAN assigned to the molecule and the IUPAC name 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)-7-oxo-6-[4-(2-oxopiperidin-1yl) phenyl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-1H-pyrazolo[3,4-c] pyridine-3-carboxamide. It is used for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic diseases. The empirical formula APIXABAN is C17H22N2O6S2. APIXABAN has the following structural formula:
4. It is stated that being the rightful owner of the suit patent, by virtue of Section 48 of the Patents Act, the plaintiffs have the exclusive right to prevent third parties who do not have its consent from any act which tentamounts to infringement of the suit patent. The suit patent expires on 17.09.2022.
5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in the past, they have instituted lawsuits before this court against various other parties which have expressed an intention to infringe or have infringed the suit patent. The plaintiffs were granted injunctive reliefs against such parties by this court. The details of the injunctive reliefs are given in para 8 of the application which read as follows:"
a) Ad interim-injunctions (six) granted for the suit patent:
i. Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors. vs. Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited, CS (COMM) No. 684 of 2019 - Order dated December 12, 2019.
ii. Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors. vs. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, CS (COMM) No. 687 of 2019 - Order dated December 13, 2019.
iii. Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors. vs. Cipla Limited, CS (COMM) No. 688 of 2019 - Order dated December 13, 2019.
iv. Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors. vs. Alkem Laboratories Limited, CS (COMM) No. 708 of 2019 - Order dated December 19, 2019.
v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors. vs. Indoco Remedies Limited, CS (COMM) No. 731 of 2019 -Order dated December 24, 2019.
vi. Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors. vs. BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd., CS (COMM) No. 27 of 2020 - Order dated January 30, 2020.
b) Direction to maintain status quo ante:
vii. Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors. vs. Natco Pharma Limited, FAO (OS)(COMM) 160 of 2019 arising out of CS (COMM) No. 342 of 2019 - Order dated July 16, 2019."
6. It is stated that recently on 14.06.2021, the plaintiffs were made aware that the defendant has filed a petition for revocation of the Patent No.247381 under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act before this court. In the said petition, the defendant has admitted it
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.
Willful disobedience is required for contempt under Order XXXIX Rule 2A; inadvertent actions do not suffice to establish contempt.
The court emphasizes the importance of expediency in the resolution of interim applications in patent infringement cases.
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....
The expiration of a patent negates the possibility of injunction for existing stock; nominal costs may still be awarded for prior infringement.
(1) Letters Patent Appeal – Word ‘judgment’ has a concept of finality in a broader and not in a narrower sense--Where an order vitally affects a valuable right of defendants, it will be treated as a ....
Validity of specific patents is upheld while assessing distinctions between coverage and disclosure, emphasizing protection of intellectual property rights against infringement.
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
