Interim injunctions in patent cases require a prima facie case; valid disclosure of patents must be clear, and a patentee cannot claim multiple patents for the same invention without significant differences.

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 Laboratories Ltd. respectively.

3. FAO(OS)(COMM) 155/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 156/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 157/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 158/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 159/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 160/2020 and FAO(OS)(COMM) 161/2020 impugn the common order/judgment dated 18th November, 2020 in suits filed by the same appellants/plaintiffs, being (i) CS(COMM) No.323/2020 against Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; (ii) CS(COMM) No.346/2020 against Micro Labs Limited; (iii) CS(COM) No.414/2020 against Zydus Healthcare Ltd. and Zydus Medica; (iv) CS(COMM) No.418/202 against Eris Lifesciences Ltd.; (v) CS(COMM) No.419/2020 against USV Pvt. Ltd.; (vi) CS(COMM) No.426/2020 against MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.; and, (vii) CS(COMM) No.154/2020 against Ajanta Pharma Ltd.

4. It would thus be seen, that the challenge in these nine appeals is to two orders/judgments; both the orders/judgments were pronounced within a span of 16 days, with both, independently of each other, on the same facts, concluding that the appellants/plaintiffs, during the pendency of the suits for permanent injunction to restrain infringement of patent, are not entitled to any interim injunction restraining respondent(s)/defendant(s) from manufacturing and selling the pharmaceutical products which are alleged to be in breach of the patent of the appellants/plaintiffs.

5. From the proximity of the dates of the impugned orders/judgments, it appears that the hearing on the applications for interim injunction, before both the Hon'ble Judges, took place simultaneously. It is inexplicable, why the appellants/plaintiffs, who have argued all these nine appeals as one and not separately, did not have the two sets of suits clubbed before the same Commercial Division and which would have saved the judicial time spent in the adjudication undertaken by one of the Judges. It appears that the appellants/plaintiffs were taking a chance, of arguing on the same subject and controversy, before two Courts. However the appellants/plaintiffs failed before both.

6. The suits, from which FAO(OS)(COMM) 139/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 140/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 158/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 160/2020 and FAO(OS)(COMM) 161/2020 arise, were filed first, to restrain the respondent(s)/defendant(s) therein from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing in any manner whatsoever, the product comprising the compound 'Dapagliflozin' (hereinafter for convenience referred to as 'DAPA' ), which was the subject matter of Indian Patent No.205147 (hereinafter for convenience referred to as 'IN 147') and Indian Patent No.235625 (hereinafter for convenience referred to as 'IN 625') and for other ancillary reliefs.

7. The suits, from which FAO(OS)(COMM) 155/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 156/2020, FAO(OS)(COMM) 157/2020 and FAO(OS)(COMM) 159/2020 arise, were filed subsequently, after lap