Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MUKTA GUPTA
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company – Appellant
Versus
BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seeking an injunction for patent infringement. (Para 1) |
| 2. court granted ad-interim injunction against defendants. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. allegations of contempt and violations by defendants. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. explaining the principle of willful disobedience. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. contempt proceedings judged on willfulness of actions. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. contextual interpretation of disobedience and compliance. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. emphasis on caution in exercising contempt powers. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 8. defendants argue compliance with patent launch timing. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 9. contradictory arguments regarding patent sales and compliance. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 10. discussion on internal controls and compliance failure. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 11. responsibility for third-party actions under authorization. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 12. lack of proactive measures for compliance. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 13. warning against future violations despite lack of willfulness. (Para 27) |
| 14. final order of the court. (Para 28) |
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J.
I.A. 2321/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC)
I.A. 4451/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC)
I.A. 5240/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC)
1. The plaintiffs filed the above suit, inter
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
