O R D E R

% 16.07.2019 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:

1. Notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for the Respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeal has been heard finally.

2. This appeal by the Defendant in CS (COMM) 342 of 2019 is directed against an order dated 5th July 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in IA No.8873 of 2019 in the said suit whereby inter alia the Appellant was restrained from infringing Indian Patent IN No.247381 (hereafter referred to as „the suit patent‟) held by the Respondents/Plaintiffs.

3. There are 3 Respondents in this appeal. They correspondingly were Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 in the aforementioned suit. They will be referred to in this order, for convenience, as Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3, just as the Appellant will be referred to as the Defendant.

4. Plaintiff No.1 is Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company, which is a company incorporated in the laws of Ireland, with its head office in Switzerland. Plaintiff No.2 Bristol-Myers Squibb India Pvt. Ltd. is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office in Mumbai and another office in New Delhi. It is a subsidiary of Plaintiff No.1 and markets pharmaceutical products in the domestic market. Plaintiff No.3 Pfizer Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913 having its registered office in Mumbai. Plaintiff No.3 is also into discovery, development, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products. Plaintiff No.3 is stated to have entered into a collaboration arrangement with Plaintiff No.2 inter alia to “commercialize including marketing, promoting, selling, etc. of „Apixaban‟ products in India.”

5. The prayer in the above suit was for a permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant from using, making, selling, storing, distributing, advertising, marketing, exporting, offering for sale, importing or in any other manner directly or indirectly dealing in any product, including but not limited to „Apigat‟ that was alleged to infringe the subject matter of the suit patent.

6. The Plaintiffs have averred in the plaint that the suit patent covers a molecule having an International Non-proprietary Name („INN‟) Apixaban used in the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic diseases. It is stated that the Plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the suit patent, the term of which expires on 17th September 2022. It is stated that the patent was granted in

2011.

7. It is further averred in para 10 of the plaint that the Defendant on 9th May 2016 filed a petition before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board („IPAB‟) seeking revocation of the suit patent. The said petition is stated to be pending. It is averred in the plaint that the Plaintiff No.1 has also been granted Indian patent No.243917 for „Nitrogen Containing Heterobicycles As factor Xa Inhibitors‟ on 11th November 2010. It is stated that Plaintiff No.2 was granted import and marketing approval for Apixaban tablets by the Drug Controller General of India („DGCI‟) on 3rd August 2012, 16th May 2014, 29th May 2015 and the permission was recently amended in the name of Plaintiff No.3 on 15th February 2019 by the DGCI.

8. According to the Plaintiffs, in the last week of June 2019 they received information that the Defendant is planning to launch a generic version of Apixaban under the probable brand name „Apigat‟ and has “already distributed sample packs to many cardiologists in the country.” According to the Plaintiffs, in the first week of July 2019 they were shocked to learn that “the stock of the Defendant would soon be available for sale in the market, as the saleable stock are in transit as per the information received from credible sources.”

9. The Plaintiffs have stated that investigation conducted by them revealed that the Defendant was in the process of launching the product „Apigat‟ having the composition of Apixaban. However, “the same was not available with any super stockist/distributor/company and the same is n