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 or sale of infringing products.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of patent numbers IN 218291, IN 249316, IN 243571 and IN 250050. The said patents as per the Plaintiff cover two products i.e., Palbociclib and Crizotinib in their different forms. The Plaintiffs are assignees to the said patents being asserted in the suit. The case of the Plaintiffs is that the patents are valid till 10th January, 2023 (Palbociclib) and 15th August, 2025 (Crizotinib) and are being infringed by the Defendant.

3. The details of the suit patents being asserted and the products they cover, as averred by the Plaintiffs are as follows:

(a) IN 218291 is assigned to Plaintiff No. 2- Warner Lambert Company LLC and the said patent covers and claims the product, which is commercially sold under the trade name `Ibrance' and in India as `Palbace'.

The bibliographic details of IN 218291 are as follows:

[IMG]

(b) IN 249316, IN 243571, and IN 250050 cover and claim the product of the Plaintiffs', `Crizotinib', which is commercially sold under the trade name Xalkori and in India as Crizalk. Plaintiff No. 1- Pfizer Inc is the assignee of IN `571 and IN `050 and Plaintiff No. 3- Sugen LLC is the assignee of IN `316. The bibliographic details of the three patents covering `Crizotinib' are as follows

[IMG]

4. The allegation in the present suit was that the Defendant had listed these products as being available for manufacture and sale, on its website. Thus, the Plaintiffs sought an injunction against launch of any products which would be infringing of its suit patents. This suit was first listed before this Court on 9th February 2022 and on the said date, an ex-parte injunction was granted against the Defendants vide order dated 9th February, 2022 in the followings terms:

"23. Till the next date of hearing, the defendant is restrained from releasing into the market or concluding or entering into any contracts with manufacturers for manufacture or marketing of Palbociclib, Crizotinib or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof, in which the plaintiff holds a valid suit patent. The defendant is also restrained from, directly or indirectly, marketing, manufacturing or releasing into the market Palbociclib, Crizotinib or its pharmaceutically acceptable salts, in formulations of any strength whatsoever."

5. Thereafter, pleadings have been completed in the matter. The Defendants have challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Court by way of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC but did not choose to file written statement. On 22nd August, 2022, an affidavit of Mr. Kamlesh Patel was filed by the Defendant. The relevant portions of the said affidavit reads as under:

"6. At the outset, it is submitted that the Defendant applied to procure product permissions from the Drugs Authority for manufacturing medicines under the drugs Palbociclib Capsules and Crizotinib Capsules believing that the drugs Palbociclib and Crizotinib are not patented. It is pertinent to mention that the Drugs Department provided the product permissions to the Defendant after following the due procedure enshrined under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and therefore any claim regarding malafide intention of the Defendant is misconceived and not called for. It is submitted that the Drugs Department should have not granted the product permissions to the Defendant. Drugs Department ought to know about the patents Palbociclib and Crizotinib in favour of the Plaintiffs.

7. That the defendant after getting the product permission from the Drugs Authority and believing that there were no patents contacted the third parties. It is pertinent to note that the defendant has not manufactured any drugs under the subject patents. It is submitted that if the Drugs Department had not given the product permissions to the Defendant, the Defendant would have not published the flyer or advertised about the all