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

2014 Supreme(AP) 1354

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland - Appellant
Vs.
Mylan Laboratories Limited - Respondent
C.M.A. No. 879 of 2014
Decided On: 05.12.2014

Headnote:

Civil Service – Civil Procedure Code - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with 151 - Suit patents by virtue of a Deed of Assignment - Granted immunity against suits for infringement - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against order - Court below dismissed petition Order CPC filed by appellant against respondent - Seeking ad-interim order against respondent/defendant its directors employees officers servants agents and others acting for its behalf or from using selling advertising exporting offering for sale and in any other manner directly or indirectly dealing in any product that is intended for export or in any other way goes beyond scope of agreement and thereby infringes subject matter of Indian Patent - Company incorporated laws of Ireland having its office at Switzerland - BMS has assigned transferred and conveyed to appellant herein its rights and interests – Held, Trial Court after considering evidence of appellant marked by way of and also exhibits marked on behalf of respondent by way of after considering pleadings of both parties dismissed injunction petition holding that petitioner has not placed any convincing material regarding infringement of process patent except relying on and that a scientific investigation is required regarding violation as per decision of Madras High Court in FDC Limited others - Trial Court has held that since there is no prima facie material decision regarding balance of convenience and irreparable loss does not arise at this stage without the proof of facts with material evidence for exercising discretionary power for granting equitable relief - Trial Court has taken a view that temporary injunction cannot be granted and do not see any reason to interfere with same in view of above - In view of above discussion other decisions relied on by both sides may not be relevant at this stage - Appeal dismissed (Para 36)

Judgment

A. Rajasheker Reddy, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against order dated 26.09.2014 passed in I.A. No. 1462 of 2014 in O.S. No. 670 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the Court below dismissed the petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with 151 CPC filed by the appellant against the respondent seeking ad-interim order against the respondent/defendant, its directors, employees, officers, servants, agents and others acting for its behalf or from using, selling, advertising, exporting, offering for sale and in any other manner directly or indirectly, dealing in any product that is intended for export to Venezuela or in any other way goes beyond the scope of the agreement dated 17.04.2011 and thereby infringes the subject matter of Indian Patent Nos. 210496 and 206217.

2. Facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:

"Appellant filed O.S. No. 670 of 2014 stating that the Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland, (for short 'BMS') is a company incorporated under the laws of Ireland having its office at Switzerland. BMS has assigned, transferred and conveyed to the appellant herein its rights and interests in the suit patents by virtue of a Deed of Assignment dated 01.10.2012. Upon filing of Form-16 for recording of the title of the appellant to the suit patents on 07.11.2013, the change in title of the Patentee of the suit patents has been recorded in the Patent Register by the Indian Patent Office. It is stated that BMS entities have been actively engaged in research and development of Atazanavir, which contains formulation, the processes for preparation of the same and also intermediates used in the preparation of Atazanavir and also the processes for the preparation of the intermediates. Atazanavir is an antiretroviral drug developed by the BMS entities to treat Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), which causes AIDS. The BMS company sells Atazanavir under the brand name Reyataz(R). It is stated that the Atazanavir was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration on 20.06.2003 and has been approved in approximately 57 countries throughout the world and also included in the list of World Health Organization's list of Essential Medicines. The Atazanavir includes Indian Patent Nos. 210496 and 206217 granted by the Indian Patent Office."

3. It is stated that the respondent company, formerly known as Matrix Laboratories Limited, is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956 in the year 1984, has been rebranded under its present name viz., Mylan Laboratories Ltd., in October, 2011. The respondent was granted immunity against suits for infringement of the appellant's intellectual property inter alia IN 496 and IN 217 vide Agreement dated 17.04.2011. It is stated that as per the Appendix 'C' of the Agreement, the territories include 43 countries and submitted that the respondent got immunity in respect of countries under Schedule-C and denied the immunity particularly export to Venezuela and alleged that the respondent is violating the patent rights of the appellant in respect of export to the Venezuela. The respondent entered into an agreement with the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) for the purpose of sale and distribution in Venezuela and that PAHO placed purchase order dated 09.06.2014 worth Rs. 4.5 cores, in favour of the respondent and the delivery was expected to be made by 28.08.2014. It is stated that the respondent is using the process identified in IN 496 and IN 217 for the manufacture of general Atazanavir and not disclosed an alternative proprietary process or an improved process for the manufacture of the same to the BMS Entities, as per Article 18 of the Agreement. Therefore, the respondent infringed and further intends to infringe the rights of the appellant in IN 496 and IN 217, by manufacturing and supplying generic Atazanavir for the purpose of sale in Venezuela and prayed for granting of permanent injunction on the ground that the petitioner has suff




























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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