Delhi High Court - Orders
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr vs Zee Laboratories Limited on 22 March, 2022
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 105/2022 & I.A. 2476/2022, 2477/2022, 2478/2022,
2479/2022, 2480/2022, 2481/2022
ASTRAZENECA AB & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali
Mittal, Mr. Siddhant Chamola and Mr. Souradeep
Mukhopadhyay, Advocates.
versus
ZEE LABORATORIES LIMITED ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Siddharth Bambha and
Ms.Sucharu Garg, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 22.03.2022
1. On 14.02.2022, when the suit was first listed before this Court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendant had stated that the Defendant had proposed to launch its Osimertinib product without being aware that it was patented in favour of the Plaintiffs. However, on coming to know of the said fact, Defendant no longer intends to manufacture or market the product. Defendant was directed to file an affidavit to that effect.
2. Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Defendant. Paras 3 and 4 of the affidavit read as under:-
"3. That the Defendant company had proposed to launch the molecule Osimertinib in its publicity leaflets under the brand name 'Osiwinib' in December 2021. However, prior to the commencement of manufacturing the said molecule, the Defendant company came to know that the Plaintiff company holds a Patent bearing no. IN '581 for the said molecule, and as CS(COMM) 105/2022 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:25.03.2022 10:57:51 such the Defendant company has decided not to manufacture the said molecule Osimertinib till the date Plaintiff's Patent is valid in law.
4. I say that the Defendant company has neither manufactured nor intends to manufacture the said molecule Osimertinib nor market the said molecule under the brand name Osiminib and/or other brand name till the date Plaintiff's patent is valid in law."
3. In view of the affidavit filed by the Defendant, nothing further remains to be adjudicated in the suit.
4. Mr. Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs, on instructions, submits that since the Defendant had on its own volition, on the first date of hearing made a statement and decided not to contest the suit, Plaintiffs are giving up their claim for damages sought in para 63(b) of the plaint. Statement on behalf of the Plaintiffs qua damages, is taken on record.
5. Since the suit has been settled at an early stage of the proceedings, Plaintiffs are entitled to refund of the entire Court Fees deposited by them in accordance with provisions of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Section 89 CPC, 1908.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs submits that expenses have been incurred by the Plaintiffs in filing the present suit and therefore cost must be imposed on the Defendant. Mr. Anand, however, very fairly submits that the cost may be awarded in favour of Delhi High Court Bar Clerk's Association.
7. Accordingly, cost of Rs.1,00,000/- is imposed on the Defendant, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk's Association.
8. Suit is decreed in terms of paras 63(a) and (d) of the plaint.
CS(COMM) 105/2022 Page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:25.03.2022 10:57:519. Pending applications are accordingly disposed of.
10. Registry is directed to draw up the Decree sheet.
JYOTI SINGH, J MARCH 22, 2022/rk CS(COMM) 105/2022 Page 3 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:25.03.2022 10:57:51