A patent infringement suit may be disposed of based on a defendant's undertaking not to commercialize the patented invention during the patent's validity, while specifically preserving the defendant's statutory right to use the invention for research purposes under Section 107A of the Patents Act.

O R D E R

% 23.01.2026

1. Let plaint be registered as a suit.

2. Issue summons.

3. Counsel as above accepts summons on behalf of the Defendant.

4. Present suit relates to infringement of Plaintiff No.1’s Indian Patent No.269841 (IN’841) which protects the novel and inventive compound ‘Ruxolitinib’ used in treatment of myelofibrosis, a type of bone marrow cancer. In particular, Claims 1, 17 and 21 of IN’841 cover and claim the patented compound Ruxolitinib, pharmaceutically acceptable salt and composition thereof, respectively. IN’841 is valid and subsisting and will expire on 12.12.2026.

5. The drug Ruxolitinib is used in treatment of intermediate or high risk myelofibrosis, a type of myeloproliferative disorder that affects the bone marrow as also for polycythemia vera, when there is inadequate response to or intolerance of hydroxyurea. It works by blocking a group of enzymes known as Janus Kinases, which are involved in the production and growth of blood cells. The patent compound Ruxolitinib is a New Chemical Entity and has been given an International Non-Proprietary Name (INN), a name designated by WHO and given to new Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients.

6. It is stated in the plaint that inventive compound Ruxolitinib is marketed and sold not only in India but in several other countries, save and except, USA under the brand name JAKAVI, which is a prescription drug. No post-grant opposition or revocation was filed by any interested person and IN’841 is a 19 year old well-established patent.

7. Ms. Mamta R. Jha, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs submits that due diligence in the first week of January, 2026 revealed that Defendant is listed as a supplier of Ruxolitinib/Ruxolitinib Phosphate API on a third party website namely ‘Pharmacompass’ https://www.pharmacompass.com/ albeit so far Defendant has not launched the product in the market. There is sufficient evidence that Defendant intends to launch Ruxolitinib as a commercial drug which will infringe IN’841 and therefore, an interim injunction be passed.

8. Mr. Afzal B. Khan, appearing for the Defendant, on instructions submits that Defendant has not commercialized any product containing the patented compound Ruxolitinib and has no intent to do so during the validity of the suit patent. It is, however, submitted that the Court may protect Defendant’s right under Section 107A of The Patents Act, 1970 to use Ruxolitinib for research.

9. In light of the undertaking given by the Defendant, Ms. Jha submits that the suit be disposed of, binding the Defendant to the undertaking and Plaintiffs shall not press their monetary reliefs against the Defendant.

10. Accordingly, the statement made by Mr. Khan is taken on record and accepted and needless to state that Defendant shall remain bound by the undertaking given to the Court.

11. It is made clear that Defendant shall not commercially manufacture, launch, import, export or deal in any API, pharmaceutical products or formulations containing the patented compound ‘Ruxolitinib’, during the validity of IN’841. It is also clarified that the rights of the Defendant under Section 107A of the Patent Act are protected, so long as the conditions required under the said provisions are fully complied with by the Defendant. 12. With the above directions, the suit, along with pending applications, is disposed of.

13. In view of the present suit being disposed of on consent terms on the first day of listing itself, Ms. Mamta R. Jha, learned counsel for Plaintiffs request for partial [50%] refund of Court fees.

14. Keeping in view the afore