Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J.
Vifor International Ltd. & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Biological E Limited & Anr. - Respondents
CS(COMM) 434 of 2023, I.A. 11567 of 2023, I.A. 11568 of 2023, I.A. 11569 of 2023, I.A. 11570 of 2023, I.A. 11571 of 2023, I.A. 11572 of 2023 & I.A. 11573 of 2023
Decided On : 19-09-2023
Patent Infringement - Product-by-Process Patent - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 151 CPC - Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 - Order XI Rule 2 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 - Patents Act, 1970 - Section 105
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, Vifor (International) Ltd. and Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., sought interim relief against the defendants for patent infringement of a product-by-process patent related to a water-soluble iron carbohydrate complex. The defendants claimed to be using a different process to manufacture the product and had already launched their product in the market.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit patent was sub-judice before the Division Bench, and the defendants had already entered the market before the filing of the suit. The court directed the defendants to maintain accounts of manufacture and sales of the product until the expiry of the suit patent and prohibited the use of the process claimed by the plaintiffs.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit patent was a 'product-by-process' patent or a 'product' and 'process' patent, and whether the defendants had infringed the patent by using a different process to manufacture the product.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the sub-judice status of the suit patent and the fact that the defendants had already entered the market before reaching its decision. It emphasized the need for the defendants to maintain accounts of manufacture and sales and prohibited the use of the process claimed by the plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The court directed the defendants to maintain accounts of manufacture and sales of the product until the expiry of the suit patent and prohibited the use of the process claimed by the plaintiffs. The case was listed for further hearing on a specified date.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Mahajan, J.
IA No. 11570/2023 (seeking exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The exempted documents shall be filed within a period of one week from today, in strict compliance with the practice rules of this Court.
3. With the aforesaid direction, the present application is allowed and disposed of.
IA No. 11573/2023 (seeking exemption from requirement of pre-institution mediation)
4. In the facts of the present case, the exemption sought from attempting pre-institution mediation, is allowed.
5. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
IA No.11571/2023 (seeking extension of time in filing the Court fees)
6. Since the deficient Court fee has already been paid by the plaintiffs, no orders are called for. The application is disposed of.
IA No.11572/2023 (seeking exemption from filing notarized affidavits)
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs states that the notarized affidavits will be filed, within a period of two weeks. Taking the said statement on record, the application is allowed and disposed of.
IA No.11569/2023 (seeking leave to file additional documents)
8. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents at a later stage under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
9. The plaintiffs', if they wish to file additional documents at a later stage, shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.
10. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
IA No. 11568/2023 (seeing interrogatories under Order XI Rule 2 as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 CPC, 1908)
11. Issue Notice.
12. Learned Counsel for the defendants appearing on advance notice accepts notice. Let reply be filed within a period of four weeks.
CAV 310/2023 and CAV 311/2023
13. As Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, learned counsel for the defendants has entered appearance, the caveats stand discharged.
CS (COMM) 434/2023
14. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
15. Issue summons.
16. The learned counsel for the defendants accepts summons. The written statement shall be filed by the defendants within thirty days from today. Along with the written statement, the defendants shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the plaintiffs, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record.
17. Liberty is given to the plaintiffs to file a replication within fifteen days of the receipt of the written statement. Along with the replication, if any, filed by the plaintiffs, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the defendants, be filed by the plaintiffs, without which the replication shall not be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.
18. List before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 22.11.2023. It is made clear that any party unjustifiably denying documents would be liable to be burdened with costs.
19. List before the Court for framing of issues on 16.12.2023.
IA No. 11567/2023 (Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2)
20. Issue notice. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants accepts notice.
21. The present application has been filed by the plaintiffs i.e. Vifor (International) Ltd. and Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the 'plaintiffs') under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC against the defendants seeking interim relief in terms of the prayer clause.
FACTS
22. The plaintiff no. 1 i.e.Vifor (International) Ltd. also known as Vifor (International) A.G. is a company based in Switzerland and is the patentee in respect of patent bearing number IN 221536 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Suit Patent'). Whereas, the plaintiff no. 2 is a company incorporated under the laws of India and is the exclusive sub-licensee of the plaintiff no.1. As the sub-licencee of the plaintiff No. 1, the plaintiff no. 2 has the right to commercially exploit the suit patent of the plaintiff no. 1 and the same is done under the bra
Intellectual property Rights - Patent - Infringement of products - Existing stock shows that lot of production of impugned product took place also when pre-grant opposition filed by Association was d....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of interim relief in patent infringement cases requires a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiffs, an....
The court reaffirmed the sanctity of patent rights, determining that allowing sale of infringing products would undermine ongoing legal protections against patent infringement.
Patent is prima facie invalid due to prior claiming and non-working, infringing on patent system integrity by prolonging monopoly post-expiration.
A quia timet action can proceed when the plaint alleges sufficient facts indicating an imminent threat of patent infringement, necessitating judicial scrutiny.
The requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory unless urgent interim relief is demonstrated, which must be assessed from the plaintiff....
Infringement of patent established; interim injunction granted to prevent public harm.
Patent rights for processes do not confer exclusive rights over products derived from those processes, impacting enforcement and claims for injunction.
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
