The rights conferred upon the patentee under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970, to prevent third parties from offering for sale or selling infringing products without consent, influenced the court's decision in ordering the continuation of the status quo.

JUDGMENT :

(Amit Bansal, J.) :—

I.A. 7808/2023 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC) in CS(COMM) 241/2023 and LA. 7816/2023 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC) in CS(COMM) 242/2023

1. The present suits have been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringement of the Indian Patent No. 221536 for manufacturing of water-soluble iron carbohydrate complex. The water-soluble iron carbohydrate complex is also designated as “FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE” or “IRON CARBOXYMALTOSE” and it is used for the intravenous treatment of iron deficiency and iron deficiency anaemia when oral iron preparations are ineffective or cannot be used.

2. The suit patent was granted on 25th June, 2008 with a priority date of 23rd October, 2002. The PCT International filing date for the suit patent is 20th October, 2003. The term of the patent expires on 20th October, 2023.

3. The drug “FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE” was launched in India in March, 2011 by the plaintiff no. 2 pursuant to entering into a non-exclusive license agreement dated 25th January, 2012 with the plaintiff no. 1.

4. Plaintiffs have given details of over 20 lawsuits filed by them against third parties, where orders protecting the plaintiffs' rights have been passed.

5. In the third week of April, 2023, the plaintiffs discovered marketing/promotional material in respect of an intended launch of a generic version of the plaintiffs' drug comprising “FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE”. The drug is being launched by the defendant in CS(COMM) 241/2023 under the name “JBCARB” and by the defendant in CS(COMM) 242/2023 under the name “CipFCM”.

6. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the launch of the aforesaid products would result in infringement of the suit patent. Apprehending the commercial launch of the infringing products of the defendants, the present suits were filed on 24th April, 2023.

7. The suits along with the applications for grant of interim injunction were initially listed before the Co-ordinate Bench of C. Hari Shankar, J. on 25th April, 2023. Since an earlier suit, being CS(COMM) 505/2022, involving the same patent is before this Court, the present suit was also transferred to this Court. Earlier, CS(COMM) 198/2023 was also transferred by the Bench of C. Hari Shankar, J. to this Court vide order dated 10th April, 2023 and CS(COMM) 194/2023 was transferred to this Court by the Bench of Sanjeev Narula, J. vide order dated 6th April, 2023. It is to be noted that the aforesaid suits and CS(COMM) 505/2022 are listed for hearing before this Court on 2nd May, 2023, along with the applications seeking an interim injunction.

8. While transferring the suits, the Bench of C. Hari Shankar J. directed that the status quo as it existed on 25th April, 2023 would continue till 26th April, 2023. The relevant observations from the order dated 25th April, 2023 are set out below:

“8. The status quo, regarding the launching of the product bearing the impugned patent, as it exists today, shall continue only till tomorrow i.e. 26th April 2023, when the matter is listed before the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bonsal.

9. This order of status quo shall come to an end tomorrow. It would not automatically stand continued unless the Bench to which this matter is being transferred deems it appropriate to continue it

10. It is made clear that the status quo is being granted for one day only because this Court has deemed it appropriate, to maintain uniformity, that similar matters are heard by the same Bench and is not being passed even on a tentative appreciation of the merits of the matter.

11. It is clarified, once again, that unless the status quo is continued by the Bench to which the matter is being transferred, it shall come to an end tomorrow.”

9. Accordingly, the matter was listed before this Bench on 26th April, 2023 and submissions on behalf of the counsels in respect of the continuation of the status quo orders were heard.

10. It has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that the suit patent is an old patent a