Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.JAYACHANDRAN, MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, JJ
Softgel Healthcare Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Pfizer Inc. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of patent litigation and letters rogatory issued. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on confidentiality and enforcement challenges. (Para 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. court's observation on domestic law and hague convention. (Para 7 , 8 , 11) |
| 4. decision of the court regarding the letters rogatory's enforceability. (Para 24 , 33 , 34) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.
&
Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J.
M/s.Pfizer Inc., a company incorporated in New York, USA, is the holder of the patent for the crystalline forms of TAFAMIDIS 61 mg, sold under the brand name ‘VYNDAMAX’ in USA. On submission of Abbreviated New Drug Applications ('ANDA') before the US Patent Office by M/s.Cipla and M/s.Hikma (formerly Zenara). Pfizer asserted that, their Patent No:9,7770,441 (441 patent), protected by United States Patent law, is under threat of infringement. M/s.Ffizer filed suit Civil Action No:23-879 (GBW) (CJB) before the District Court for the District of Delaware, claiming that Cipla’s submission of ANDA No:218409 and Zenara's (now Hikma's) ANDA No:21805 are before the expiry of the Pfizer Patent 441 and hence it constitutes infringement. As the plaintiff, Pfizer also asked the defendants, Dexce
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
