Astrazeneca AB vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, AMIT BANSAL
Astrazeneca AB – Appellant
Versus
Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. – Respondent

Table of Content
1. challenging orders on interim relief in patent infringement cases. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. details of the patents involved and plaintiffs' claims of infringement. (Para 6 , 8)
3. arguments and reasoning against validity of patents. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. juridical interpretation of patent claims and precedents. (Para 25 , 27 , 29)
5. dismissal of appeals due to lack of merit. (Para 52)

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. All these nine appeals, under Section 13 (1A) of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), impugn the orders/judgments of denial of interim relief, in suits instituted by the appellants/plaintiffs i.e. (i) AstraZeneca AB, Sweden and (ii) AstraZeneca Pharma India Ltd. against the respondent(s)/defendant(s) in each of the appeals, for permanent injunction restraining infringement of patent and for ancillary reliefs.

2. FAO(OS)(COMM) 139/2020 and FAO(OS)(COMM) 140/2020 impugn the common order/judgment dated 2nd November, 2020 in CS(COMM) No.410/2020 and in CS(COMM) No.411/2020 filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Alkem Lab

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTRAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, AMIT BANSALAstrazeneca AB – AppellantVersusIntas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, AMIT BANSAL
Astrazeneca AB – Appellant
Versus
Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. – Respondent