Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Mukta Gupta, J.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company - Appellant
Versus
BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
CS(COMM) 27 of 2020
Decided On : 18-11-2022
| 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 alia, seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants, its employees, officers, agents, etc. for directly or indirectly dealing in any product including but not limited to generic APIXABAN product that infringes the subject matter of the Indian Patent No. IN.247381, delivery up of all stocks of generic APIXABAN in possession of the defendants to the representatives of the plaintiff which infringes those subject matter of IN.247381.
2. When the suit came up before this Court on 21st January, 2020 the suit was registered and as learned counsel for the defendants entered appearance, arguments in I.A. No.803/2020 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC were heard. Vide order dated 30th January, 2020 this Court passed an ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in terms of prayer (a) of para 17 of the application. Prayer (a) in para 17 of the application reads as under:
"a) An order for ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants, its directors, employees, officers, servants, agents, stockists, retailers, semi-stockists, wholesalers, marketers, distributors, any other entity/person in the chain of supply and all others acting for and on its behalf from using, making, selling, distributing, advertising (including on the Defendants' website and third party websites), marketing, exporting. offering for sale, importing or in any other manner, directly or indirectly, dealing in any product including but not limited a generic Apixaban product that infringes the subject matter of the Indian Patent No. IN 247381;"
3. Alleging that despite ad-interim injunction granted by this Court vide order dated 30th January, 2020 the defendants were selling their products in the open market, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No.2321/2020 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and in view of the fact that the case of the defendants was that the product being sold in the market were prior to the injunction order, this Court issued notice simpliciter in the application granting time to file reply to the application. This was followed by another application being I.A. No. 4451/2020 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC wherein the plaintiffs alleged that the four respondents i.e. defendant No.1 & 2 who were impleaded in the suit as also Dharmesh Mahendra Shah and Raheel Dharmesh Shah i.e. respondents No.3 & 4 in the application being the Chairman & Managing Director and Director of respondent No.1 company respectively, submitted a tender offering for sale of APIXABAN and the said act of defendant No.1 and its officers/directors amounts to willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 30th January, 2020. Considering the documents placed on record, prima facie, it was revealed that the defendant No.1's agents at Varanasi had offered to sell A
Willful disobedience of court orders, even if later complied with, can lead to significant penalties to uphold the authority of the court.
Violations of interim orders should be viewed strictly to maintain the rule of law, and the court should send a deterrent message to counterfeiters.
Interim orders cease upon the issuance of final judgments, impacting the enforceability of prior mandates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive rights of the patent holder to prevent infringement under Section 48 of the Patents Act.
The judgment establishes the principle that violation of injunction orders and patent infringement can lead to contempt of court under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC.
Power to order civil imprisonment under Order XXXIX Rule 2A curtails an individual's fundamental right, albeit through a process of law.
Point of Law; application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC is filed, the Court shall register that as Miscellaneous and issue notice of the same to the defendants contemnors since no such procedure w....
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
