IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp. - Appellant
Versus
YMS Laboratories Private Limited - Respondent
CS(COMM) 250 of 2021 and I.A. 6917 of 2021 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC)
Decided On : 15-12-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. settlement terms regarding patent infringement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court acknowledges mutual agreement. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. decree and court fee refund granted. (Para 7 , 8) |
C. Hari Shankar, J.
I.A. 21336/2022(Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC)
1. The dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant stands settled mutually.
2. This application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeks that the suit be decreed in terms of the said settlement.
3. The terms of settlement, as set out in para 2 of the application may be reproduced, thus:
"(i) The Parties have agreed that the Commercial Suit for Patent Infringement, being C.S.(Comm) 250 of 2021 shall be decreed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in terms of the present settlement agreement.
(ii) The Defendant acknowledges the validity of the suit patent IN 209816 and the Plaintiff No. 1's exclusive right in dealing in Sitagliptin or any of its pharmaceutically acceptable salts, as an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (hereinafter referred as `API') including Sitagliptin Phosphate Mono-hydrate, as an impurity, finished product or any of its pharmaceutically acceptable salts, during its lifetime. The Defendant further admits that during the lifetime of IN 209816, any act of making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing exporting or otherwise using the subject matter of IN' 816, including Sitagliptin and also its pharmaceutically acceptable salts including Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate, would be violative of the statutory rights of the Plaintiffs herein.
(iii) With respect to the Defendant's activities concerning the infringing Sitagliptin product, the Defendant states:
a. That the Defendant received notice of the order of interim Injunction dated May 31,2021, on July 16,2021;
b. The Defendant undertakes that during the subsistence of the suit patent, the Defendant had not manufactured Sitagliptin or any of its pharmaceutically acceptable salts, including Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate; and
c. The Defendant further undertakes to remove all infringing listings featuring the infringing Sitagliptin or any other product infringing the suit patent from third party e-commerce websites/platforms including www.indiamart.com and www.tradeindia.com.
(iv) The Defendant undertakes that it has not dealt with Sitagliptin in any manner, including manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, importing and exporting a generic version of Sitagliptin during the validity of IN 209816.
(v) The undertakings given above by the Defendant shall be binding henceforth on the Defendant, its associates, representatives, successors, partners, employees, affiliates and assignees-in-business.
(vi) Subject to the undertakings given by the Defendant herein, the Plaintiffs forego their claim for damages, rendition of accounts and costs of the proceedings as regards the Defendant, as prayed for in paragraph 53 clauses (b) to (d) of the Plaint. However, in the event of a breach of these undertakings by the Defendant, the Plaintiffs reserve their right to seek any remedies available to them in law and equity. Furthermore, the Defendant shall be liable to indemnify the Plaintiffs against all costs and damages incurred, either INR 2 crores or the actual costs and damages incurred by the Plaintiffs due to such continued or future breach by the said Defendant, whichever is higher.
(vii) The parties agree that the present proceedings shall be decreed in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant, in terms of the present settlement agreement."
4. Learned Counsel for the parties are present and agree on behalf of their respective clients that they would remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
5. As such, nothing survives for adjudication in the suit.
6. The suit is, accordingly, decreed in terms of the aforesaid terms of settlement, by which the parties shall remain bound.
7. The Registry is directed to draw up a decree-she
Settlement terms enforceable under CP Code, where defendant acknowledges patent validity and agrees to refrain from infringing activities.
The court's decision was influenced by the lawfulness of the settlement agreement and its impact on the decree of the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
The court's decision was influenced by the settlement agreement, which was found to be lawful and binding upon the parties, leading to the decree in favor of Defendant 1.
Infringement of a patent and liability for damages after the expiration of the patent term
An amicable settlement resolving patent disputes, where parties acknowledge validity and agree not to infringe, is enforceable under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC.
Settlement agreements in patent infringement cases can lead to the decree of the suit and entitlement to a refund of court fees.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to decree a suit based on a settlement agreement under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The acknowledgment of patent validity and early settlement entitles the plaintiff to a full refund of court fees under CPC Order XXIII Rule 3.
The court upheld the proprietary right of the plaintiff over the patented agricultural composition and prohibited Defendant 1 from infringing the plaintiff's patent.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.