Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Vifor International Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Aishwarya Health Care Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
CS(COMM) 167/2023
1. The grievance of the plaintiffs in this suit is that the defendants are infringing the plaintiffs' registered patent IN 221536 (IN'536) which claimed the compound FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE, under the brand name FEROCOSE FCM. Accordingly, the plaintiffs seek a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs' registered patent IN 221536 and from manufacturing and clearing in the market FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE, which is subject matter of the suit patent.
2. During the pendency of these proceedings IN'536 has expired on 20 October 2023.
3. The defendants have filed an affidavit dated 22 November 2023 deposing, on oath, that neither have they manufactured nor sold any product comprising the compound FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE, prior to the expiry of the suit patent.
4. In that view of the matter, Mr. Siddhant Chamola, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs does not press the present suit any further. He, however, prays that the court fees deposited by the plaintiffs may be refunded.
5. The suit stands disposed of accordingly.
6. The plaintiffs shall be entitled to refund of the court fee deposited by them.
I.A.
The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence of infringement by the defendants before the expiry of the patent.
The court recognized the importance of mutual agreements in patent disputes, allowing for a settlement based on the concession of parties, focusing on nominal costs rather than damages.
Patent rights for processes do not confer exclusive rights over products derived from those processes, impacting enforcement and claims for injunction.
Settlement terms enforceable under CP Code, where defendant acknowledges patent validity and agrees to refrain from infringing activities.
Mediation facilitated an amicable resolution, allowing for a decree based on a Settlement Agreement and a refund of court fees as established by prior judicial decisions.
The acknowledgment of patent validity and early settlement entitles the plaintiff to a full refund of court fees under CPC Order XXIII Rule 3.
Infringement of patent established; interim injunction granted to prevent public harm.
Trademark infringement is addressed when a defendant undertakes not to use a contested mark, leading to permanent injunctions to prevent confusion or deception in the marketplace.
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
