SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 17461

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Anish Dayal, J
PFIZER INC – Appellant
Versus
EVEREST PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED – Respondent
CS(COMM) 351/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Tusha Malhotra, Ms. Tanvi Bhatnagar, Ms. Sugandha Yadav
For the Respondents: Mr. Naman Joshi, Mr. Rahul

The court established that a clear case of patent infringement justified an ex-parte ad interim injunction to protect the plaintiffs' rights.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 11 Rule 1(4) - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Plaintiffs sought leave to file additional documents and exemption from pre-litigation mediation - The court allowed exemptions and granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction against defendants for patent infringement of the suit patent. (Paras 1, 2, 16, 17)

(B) Patent Law - The suit patent was granted for a compound useful in treating cancers, particularly lung cancer - The plaintiffs established a prima facie case of infringement by the defendants selling the infringing product without any valid license. (Paras 3, 8, 16)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, Pfizer Inc and its subsidiary, filed a suit against Everest Pharmaceuticals for patent infringement regarding the compound LORLATINIB. The suit patent is valid until 20th February 2033, and the plaintiffs have previously sought injunctions against the defendants for similar infringements.

Findings of Court:
The court found a prima facie case for granting an ex-parte ad interim injunction, emphasizing the likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs if the injunction was not granted.

Issues: The main issues included the grounds for allowing exemptions from mediation and the necessity of granting an injunction to protect patent rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the plaintiffs demonstrated a clear case of patent infringement and that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction to prevent potential harm to the plaintiffs.

Result: An ex-parte ad interim injunction is granted against the defendants.

ORDER

% 01.05.2024 I.A. 9668/2024 (Seeking leave to file additional documents)

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as applicable to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 seeking to place on record additional documents.

2. The plaintiff, if it wishes to file additional documents at a later stage, shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

3. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.

I.A. 9669/2024 (Exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation)

1. Having regard to the facts of the present case and in light of the judgement of Division Bench of this Court in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. R.A. Perfumery Works Private Ltd. , FAO (COMM) 128/2021, exemption from attempting pre institution mediation is allowed.

2. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 9670/2024 (Exemption from filing certified docs./dim copies etc.)

1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Applicant shall file legible, clear, and original copies of the documents on which the applicant may seek to place reliance before the next date of hearing.

3. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.

I.A. 9671/2024 (Exemption from service through email to defendant no.6 to 8 and permission to serve them on WhatsApp)

1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.

CS(COMM) 351/2024

1. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

2. Upon filing of process fee, issue summons to the defendants by all permissible modes. Summons shall state that the written statement(s) be filed by the defendants within 30 days from the date of receipt of summons.

Along with the written statements, the defendants shall also file affidavits of admission/denial of the documents of the plaintiffs, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record. Liberty is given to the plaintiffs to file a replication within 30 days of the receipt of the written statements. Along with the replication, if any, filed by the plaintiffs, affidavits of admission/denial of documents filed by the defendants, be filed by the plaintiffs, without which the replications shall not be taken on record.

If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.

3. List before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 05th August,

2024.

4. It is made clear that any party unjustifiably denying documents would be liable to be burdened with costs.

I.A. 9667/2024 (Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, CPC)

1. This application has been filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’] by the plaintiffs as part of the accompanying suit seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of patent bearing no. IN 298989 titled ‘Macrocyclic Derivatives for the Treatment of Proliferative Diseases’ [‘suit patent’] and other attendant reliefs, in particular, restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, distributing, promoting, or dealing with in any manner the pharmaceutical product ‘LORLATINIB’ either as API or any of its pharmaceutically acceptable salt under the brand name ‘LORBREXEN’ or any other brand name that infringes the suit patent.

2. Plaintiff no.1 is a company incorporated under the laws of Delaware in the United States of America. While the plaintiff no.2 is the subsidiary of plaintiff no.1. The suit patent was granted on 19th July, 2018 and priority date of 06th March, 2012 and is valid till 20th February, 2033. The date of publication of the suit patent was of 01st July, 2016, and no pre-grant or post-grant opposition has been filed in India against the suit patent.

3. Mr. Pravin Anand, counsel for plaintiffs points out that the invention has been granted patent in 90 countries and has been approved fo

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top