Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 06.08.2025 vs Femilab Healthcare & Anr on 29 August, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2025:HHC:29388
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
OMP No.1085 of 2024 in
COMS No.24 of 2024
.
Reserved on: 06.08.2025
Decided on: 29.08.2025
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH
& Anr. ... Applicants.
Versus
Femilab Healthcare & Anr. ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1Yes
____________________________________________________ _
For the applicants : Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate,
r with Dr. Sanjay Kumar, M/s Arpita
Sawhney, Atul Jhingan, Priyansh
Sharma, Ankit Thakur and Sanket
Singh Sengar, Advocates.
For the respondents :
Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for non-applicant No.1.
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate,
for non-applicant No.2.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
This application stands filed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the applicants/plaintiffs alongwith COMS No.24 of 2024.
2. In terms of this application, the applicant had prayed for the following reliefs:-
"a) Restrain the Respondents by themselves, their directors, licensees, stockists and distributors, agents, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:25:28 :::CIS 2
2025:HHC:29388 sister concerns, subsidiaries and/or anyone claiming through any of them, jointly and severally from infringing the patent rights of Applicant No. 1 under Indian Patent .
No. 268846 by launching, advertising, making using, offering for sale, selling, importing. exporting and/or stockpiling the medicinal product, Empagliflozin in any form whatsoever including Empagliflozin API, Empagliflozin formulation, "Empagliflozin Tablets", "Empagliflozin + Metformin Hydrochloride Tablets" and/or "Empagliflozin + Linagliptin Tablets" or any "generic version" thereof or in any combination with Empagliflozin or any product sold under the trade mark(s)/name(s) "Empafine M Forte", "Empafine "Empafine L 5/25", 25 Tablets", "Empafine 10 Tablets" and "Empafine - L 5/10"
or any other trade mark/name, whatsoever, or any other product covered by the subject patent granted by the Controller of Patents on September 18, 2015 in favour of Applicant No. 1;
b) Restrain the Respondents by themselves, their directors, licensees, stockists and distributors, agents, sister concerns, subsidiaries and/or anyone claiming through any of them, jointly and severally from launching, using, offering for sale, selling, importing, exporting and/or dealing with it in any manner, whatsoever, after the expiry of the subject patent, the medicinal product, Empagliflozin in any form whatsoever including Empagliflozin API, Empagliflozin formulation, "Empagliflozin Tablets", "Empagliflozin + Metformin Hydrochloride Tablets" and/or "Empagliflozin + Linagliptin Tablets" or any "generic version" thereof or in ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:25:28 :::CIS 3 2025:HHC:29388 any combination with Empagliflozin or any product sold under the trade mark(s)/name(s) "Empafine M Forte", "Empafine L 5/25", "Empafine 25 Tablets", "Empafine 10 .
Tablets" and "Empafine L 5/10" or any other trade mark/name, whatsoever, or any other product covered by the subject patent granted by the Controller of Patents on September 18, 2015 in favour of Applicant No. I manufactured during the term of the subject patent;
c) Restrain the Respondents by themselves, their directors, licensees, stockists and distributors agents, sister concerns, subsidiaries and/or anyone claiming through any of them, jointly and severally from launching the r medicinal product, Empagliflozin in any form whatsoever including Empagliflozin API, Empagliflozin formulation, "Empagliflozin Tablets", "Empagliflozin Metformin Hydrochloride Tablets" and/or "Empagliflozin Linagliptin Tablets" or any "generic version" thereof or in any combination with Empagliflozin or any product sold under the trade mark(s)/name(s) "Empafine M Forte", "Empafine L 5/25", "Empafine 25 Tablets", "Empafine -
10 Tablets" and "Empafine L. 5/10" or any other trade mark/name, whatsoever, or any other product covered by the subject patent granted by the Controller of Patents on September 18, 2015 Jin favour of Applicant No. 1 for a period of six months after the expiry of the subject patent;
d) Order seizure and forfeiture of infringing product i.e., Empagliflozin in any form whatsoever including Empagliflozin APL Empagliflozin formulation, "Empagliflozin Tablets", "Empagliflozin + Metformin Hydrochloride Tablets" and/or "Empagliflozin + ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:25:28 :::CIS 4 2025:HHC:29388 Linagliptin Tablets" or any "generic version" thereof or in any combination with Empagliflozin or any product sold under the trade mark(s)/name(s) "Empafine M Forte", .
"Empafine-L 5/25", "Empafine - 25 Tablets", "Empafine 10 Tablets" and "Empafine - L 5/10" or any other trade mark/name, whatsoever, or any other product covered by the subject patent;
e) Appoint Receiver in respect of the entire stock of the impugned products with all powers under Order XL, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including the power to enter any place, at any time, on any day, including holidays, even after sunset, without notice, to search, seize, and or store the impugned products, labels, strip packs, cartons, packets, materials and things and for the purpose to break open any lock and to take appropriate police assistance as may be required."
3. When this case was listed on 07.12.2012, the following interim relief was granted by the Court in favour of the plaintiff:-
"COMS No.24 of 2024Issue notice to the defendants, returnable for 08.01.2025, on steps already taken.OMP No. 1085 of 2024
Notice in above terms.
By way of this application, the applicants have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
"Restrain the Respondents by themselves, their directors, licensees, stockists and distributors, agents, sister concerns, subsidiaries and/or anyone claiming through any of them, jointly and ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:25:28 :::CIS 5 2025:HHC:29388 severally from infringing the patent rights of Applicant No. 1 under Indian Patent No. 268846 by launching, advertising, making, using, offering for .
sale, selling, importing. exporting and/or stockpiling the medicinal product, Empagliflozin in any form whatsoever including Empagliflozin API, Empagliflozin formulation, "Empagliflozin Tablets", "Empagliflozin + Metformin Hydrochloride Tablets"
and/or "EmpagliflozinLinagliptin Tablets" or any "generic version thereof or in any combination with Empagliflozin or any product sold under the trade mark(s)/name(s) "Empafine M Forte" "Empafine L 5/25". "Empafine 25 Tablets" "Empafine 10 Tablets" and "Empafine - L 5/10" or any other trade mark/name. whatsoever, or any other product covered by the subject patent granted by the Controller of Patents on September 18, 2015 in favour of Applicant No: 1.
Restrain the Respondents by themselves, their directors, licensees, stockists and distributors, agents, sister concerns. subsidiaries and/or anyone claiming through any of them, jointly and severally from launching, using, offering for sale, selling, importing, exporting and/or dealing with it in any manner, whatsoever, after the expiry of the subject patent, the medicinal product. Empagliflozin in any form whatsoever including Empagliflozin API, Empagliflozin formulation, "Empagliflozin Tablets", "Empagliflozin + Metformin Hydrochloride Tablets" and/or "Empagliflozin + Linagliptin ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:25:28 :::CIS 6 2025:HHC:29388 Tablets" or any "generic version" thereof or in any combination with Empagliflozin or any product sold under the trade mark(s)/name(s) "Empafine M .
Forte" "Empafine "Empafine L 5/25", 25 Tablets".
"Empafine 10 Tablets" and "Empafine L 5/10" or any other trade mark/name, whatsoever, or any other product covered by the subject patent granted by the Controller of Patents on September 18, 2015 in favour of applicant No. 1 manufactured during the term of the subject matter.
Restrain the Respondents by themselves, their directors, licensees, stockists and distributors, agents, sister concerns, subsidiaries and/or anyone claiming through any of them, jointly and severally from launching the medicinal product. Empagliflozin in any form whatsoever including Empagliflozin API, Empagliflozin formulation, "Empagliflozin Tablets", "Empagliflozin + Metformin Hydrochloride Tablets" and/or "Empagliflozin + Linagliptin Tablets" or any "generic version" thereof or in any combination with Empagliflozin or any product sold under the trade mark(s)/name(s) "Empafine M Forte", "Empafine L 5/25", "Empafine 25 Tablets", "Empafine 10 Tablets" and "Empafine L 5/10" or any other trade mark/name, whatsoever, or any other product covered by the subject patent granted by the Controller of Patents on September 18, 2015 in favour of Applicant No. 1 for a period of six month after the expiry of the subject Patent."::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:25:28 :::CIS 7
2025:HHC:29388 Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the Subject Patent has been duly granted in favour of applicant No.1 on .
18.09.2015 and as the international filing date thereof was 11.03 2005, the date of expiry of the Patent is 11.03 2025. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that recently it has come to the notice of the applicants that the non-applicants were infringing the Patent of the applicants by manufacturing and selling the infringing products, details whereof are given in the application Despite the fact that the respondents do not have any Patent for manufacturing the product in issue, yet by imitating and infringing the Patent of the applicants, the respondents are selling their product in the market to the deterrent of the interest of the applicants Learned Senior Counsel submits that as the expiry date of the Patent of the applicants is 11 03.2025 in these circumstance, in case, ad-interim injunction is not granted in favour of the applicants, then, the applicants will suffer from irreparable loss in the light of the fact that the respondents would be able to sell their product in the market by infringing the Patent of the applicants without having any legal right to do so Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in these peculiar circumstances, in case, the prayer for ad-interim injunction is not granted, the applicants will suffer from irreparable loss and the very purpose of filing the suit would be frustrated Leamed Senior ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:25:28 :::CIS 8 2025:HHC:29388 Counsel also submits that in the light of the fact that the applicants have a Patent registered in their favour, whereas, the non-applicants do not have so .
and further, as there is no challenge as upto date to the Patent of the applicants, therefore, prima facie also, there is a case in favour of the applicants and balance of convenience is also in their favour.
Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and having perused the averments made in the application, as this Court finds that a prima facie case has been made out by the applicants for the grant of ad-interim order, therefore, it is ordered that till the next date of hearing, the respondents are restrained either themselves or through their directors, licensees, stockiest and distributors, retailers, agents, servants and/or anyone claiming through any of them, jointly and severally, from infringing the patent rights of plaintiffs/applicants under Indian Patent No. 268846 by launching, advertising making, using, offering for sale, selling, importing and/or exporting the medicinal product Empagliflozin in any form whatsoever, including Empagliflozin API Empagliflozin "Empagliflozin Tablet" formulation Empagliflozin Metformin Hydrochloride Tablets and/or Empagliflozin + Linagliptin Tablets or any "generic version" thereof in any combination with Empagliflozin or any product sold under the trademark/names "Empafine M forte "Empafine-L 5/25", "Empafine-
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:25:28 :::CIS 92025:HHC:29388 25 Tablets and Empafine-L 5/10" or any other trademark/name whatsoever, or any other product covered by the subject patent granted by the .
Controller of Patents on 18.09.2015 In favour of plaintiff/applicant No. 1. This order is subject to compliance of provisions of Order 39, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
OMP Nos. 1086 to 1089 of 2024 Notice in above terms."
4. The Patent granted in favour of the applicants/plaintiffs has expired on 11.03.2025.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred as 'the applicants') submitted that though the Patent has expired on 11.03.2025, yet the interim granted in favour of the applicants should be allowed to be continued, because the applicants have to be protected for the infringement of their Patent that was indulged into by the non-applicants before the expiry of the said Patent. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of Dehli High in Sotefin SA Versus Indraprastha Cancer Society and Research Center and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del. 516, to substantiate his submissions.
6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendant No.1 referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.16237 of 2024, titled Novartis AG & Anr. Versus Natco Pharma Limited, decided on ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:25:28 :::CIS 10 2025:HHC:29388 02.08.2024, as well as the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki Versus LMW Limited, announced .
on 01.07.2025 and submitted that as the Patent of the plaintiffs has expired now, the interim application has served its purpose and the interim order is liable to be vacated.
7. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the application as well as other relevant documents.
8. It is a matter of record that in the present application, interim protection was granted by the Court to the applicants. It is also a matter of record that the Patent has now expired in the month of March, 2025. It is also a matter of record that in the present case a Court Commissioner was appointed in terms of order dated 17.03.2025, who has submitted his report.
9. This Court is of the considered view that once the Patent has expired, the interim order passed in favour of the applicants cannot be permitted to operate, thereafter. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel that this Court has to take into consideration the fact that someone might in advance during the lifetime of the Patent, plan to infringement same after its expiry and such a situation has to be kept in mind by the Court, does not convince the Court. This is for the reason that as of now there is no ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:25:28 :::CIS 11 2025:HHC:29388 provision in the Patent Act, which prohibits any entity from entering into the market with the product qua which the Patent is with one .
party, immediately after the expiry of the Patent. In light of the statute not prohibiting an entity from coming up with the product immediately upon the expiry of the Patent, such a restriction, in the considered view of this Court, cannot be imposed by way of a judicial feat.
10. The purpose of granting interim relief in favour of a Patent Holder is to ensure that the Patent is not infringed by the alleged infringer during the life span of the Patent. Once the Patent expires, the purpose of the grant of such interim stands satisfied and the interim cannot be allowed to continue thereafter. Of course, if during the currency of the Patent any activity has been undertaken by the infringer, like production of the product etc., then such identified product can be taken care of by restraining the infringer from selling or marketing the said product, even after the expiry of the Patent. However, even such an infringer cannot be restrained after the expiry of the Patent to thereafter come up in the market with a product vis-a-viz which the Patent Holder was holding a valid Patent.
11. At this point, it is relevant to refer to an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:25:28 :::CIS 12 2025:HHC:29388 No.16237 of 2024, titled Novartis AG & Anr. Versus Natco Pharma Limited, decided on 02.08.2024. As this order is passed by the .
Bench of three Hon'ble Judges, it is not a very lengthy order and the same is being re-produced for ready reference:
"ORDER 1 The Special Leave Petition arises from a judgment dated 24 April, 2024 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi.
2 The judgment of the Division Bench arose in an appeal against a judgment of the Single Judge dated 13 December 2021. By the order of the Single judge, which was impugned in appeal, the Single Judge had granted an injunction in the suit instituted by the respondent in the following terms:
"the defendant is restrained by itself or through its directors, group companies or sister concerns. associates, divisions, assigns in business, licensees, franchisees, agents, stockist, distributors and dealers from using, manufacturing (either through itself or through third parties), importing, selling, offering for sale either by way of promotion or tender or any other means, exporting, directly or indirectly dealing in Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API). pharmaceutical products, or formulation containing Eltrombopag Olamine (Eltrombopag bis (monoethanolamine)) either alone or in combination with any other ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:25:28 :::CIS 13 2025:HHC:29388 compound or API or in any other form as may amount to infringement of suit patent IN 233161 of the Plaintiff 1 either under the .
brand Trombopag or any other brand. 3 The order of the Single Judge was carried in appeal. 4 The Division Bench reserved its judgment on 20 July 2022. During the pendency of the proceedings, the patent on which the petitioners have relied expired on 21 May 2023.
5. In November 2023, the proceedings were mentioned again before the Division Bench at the behest of the respondents. The appeal was reheard until 7 March 2024. The impugned judgment was rendered on 24 April 2024.
6 Therefore, even before the appeal was reheard between November 2023 and 7 March 2024, the patent had expired on 21 May 2023 Hence, it was unnecessary for the Division Bench to enter upon a detailed review on merits, as it did in the course of its judgment since the injunction which had been issued by the Single Judge had worked itself out, following the expiry of the patent on 21 May 2023. The judgment of the Single Judge would cease to have any practical relevance once the patent expired.
7 We, therefore, in these circumstances, set aside both, the judgment of the Division Bench dated 24 April 2024 as well as the judgment of the Single Judge dated 13 December 2021. Neither of the two orders shall be cited as a precedent in any other case
8. Since the petition has been disposed of on the above ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:25:28 :::CIS 14 2025:HHC:29388 grounds that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issues which would fall for consideration in the suit.
.
9. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly disposed of.
10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of"
12. Therefore, it is evident from the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that once the Patent expires, the injunction, if any, granted in such proceedings in favour of a Patent Holder works itself out with the expiry of the Patent. No other view is possible in this regard in light of the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Though, it was urged before this Court that in the said order, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to observe that it be not cited as a precedent in any other case, but a perusal of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court demonstrates that in Para-7 what has been observed is that the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court shall not be cited as a precedent in any other case. It was not a reference to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
13. Now, in this backdrop, I will refer to the order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Dehli High in Sotefin SA Versus Indraprastha Cancer Society and Research Center and Others (supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants. In ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:25:28 :::CIS 15 2025:HHC:29388 Para-49 of the said judgment, it was observed as under:-
"49. In the opinion of the court, if infringement has .
occurred during the lifetime of the patent, the infringing goods would not become kosher on expiry of the patent. Plaintiff would be entitled to seek restrain on Smart Dollies which were made or imported at a time when the suit patent was valid and subsisting. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that the patent is to expire the next month, since the Smart Dollies are prima facie infringing the suit patent as on the date of infringement, Plaintiff can insist on protection under Section 48 of the Act. On this aspect no case law has been cited and Mr. Lall has contended that there is no precedent of an Indian court on this issue. In these circumstances, he has placed reliance on judgments of USA and UK to argue that infringing articles made during the term of patent would continue to be restrained, even after expiry of the patent term."
Thereafter, in Paras-53 and 54 of the said judgment, the following was held:-
"53. Further, Mr. Lall also pointed out that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Court, in Roche v. Bolar,22 had held that even use of a patented technology for obtaining regulatory approval prior to the expiry of the patent term, in order to enable immediate manufacture and sale after expiry of patent protection, constituted an infringement after expiry of the patent, and the patentee was entitled to an appropriate remedy. Post the outcome of this case, a statutory exception for the same was carved out in the USA under the Hatch- Waxman Act which was passed to ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:25:28 :::CIS 16 2025:HHC:29388 overturn this verdict. It established what is now known as the Bolar Exemption, i.e., an exception for research upon patented products for regulatory approval prior to .
expiry of a patent. In India, Section 107A(a) carves out the Bolar Exemption on use of the patent during its term for research/ regulatory approvals. But for this provision, even obtaining regulatory approval to enable launch of a generic product in the market, immediately after expiry of the patent, would not be permissible.23 This, too, suggests that the pirated/ infringing goods would remain infringing, after the expiry.
54. Therefore, on a prima facie basis, this court is in agreement with the views expressed by the foreign courts, which suggest that any product which is infringing, during the term of the patent, would continue to be tainted. The infringement cannot get dissolved with the lapse of the patent. Undoubtedly, the monopoly of the patentee would stand extinguished with the expiry of the term, but the infringement that has occurred during the lifetime of the patent would not fade away. Hence the use of the Smart Dollies, imported during the term of a subsisting patent, in violation of the patentee's exclusive rights, have to be restrained.
Whether Defendants are entitled to protection under Section 107A(b) of the Act?"
14. The application was disposed of by the learned Court thereafter, in the following terms:-
"73. In light of the above, the application is allowed and the Defendants are restrained from making, selling, ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:25:28 :::CIS 17 2025:HHC:29388 exporting or from offering for sale, importing or in any manner directly or indirectly dealing with infringing products viz. Smart Dollies/ Automatic parking system .
that infringes the suit patent IN 214088, till the pendency of the present suit."
15. This Court is of the considered view that in light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been categorically held that an interim order works itself out following the expiry of the Patent, the interim granted in favour of the plaintiff cannot be continued after the expiry of the Patent. However, this Court concurs with the findings returned by the Dehli High Court, to the extent that the infringement cannot dissolve with the lapse of the Patent and that the infringement which occurred during the lifetime of the Patent cannot fade away. However, it is again observed that on said basis, the interim cannot be allowed to continue till the disposal of the suit and it has to be vacated after the expiry of the Patent. The interest of the Patent Holder can be protected by ordering that the infringement that has occurred during the lifetime of the Patent is not condoned and the infringer cannot take the benefit of its act of infringement, after the expiry of the Patent by restraining the infringer from marketing or selling the product so manufactured during the subsistence of the Patent.
16. This Court would also now refer to the judgment relied ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:25:28 :::CIS 18 2025:HHC:29388 upon by learned Senior Counsel for defendant No.1 in Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki Versus LMW Limited, in CS (COMM) .
881/2024, decided on 01.07.2025. In this judgment, Delhi High Court held that after the expiry of the Patent the Court is precluded from passing any effected order restraining infringement of the said Patent and while passing this order, Delhi High Court relied upon the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki Versus LMW Limited, in CS (COMM) 881/2024, decided on 01.07.2025. Relevant para of this judgment r is quoted hereinbelow:-
"43. In fact, this Court finds able support in Novartis AG & Anr. v. Natco Pharma Limited29, wherein recently, on 02.08.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with similar facts, and under similar circumstances in a Special Leave Petition arising out of a judgment dated 24.04.2024 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in FAO(OS)(COMM) 178/2021 entitled Natco Pharma v.
Novartis AG & I.A. 41600/2024 in CS(COMM) 881/2024 Page 21 of 23 Anr., in an appeal against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CS(COMM) 256/2021 on 13.12.2021 entitled Novartis AG & Anr. v. Natco Pharma Limited, held as under:-
"6. Therefore, even before the appeal was reheard between November 2023 and 7 March 2024, the patent had expired on 21 May 2023. Hence, it was unnecessary for the Division Bench to enter upon a ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:25:28 :::CIS 19 2025:HHC:29388 detailed review on merits, as it did in the course of its judgment since the injunction which had been issued by the Single Judge had worked itself out, .
following the expiry of the patent on 21 May 2023. The judgment of the Single Judge would cease to have any practical relevance once the patent expired."
17. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, this application is disposed of with the direction that since the Patent in issue expired, the interim protection granted by this Court on 06.12.2024 is vacated. However, it is further observed that the product that was manufactured by defendant No.1 during the currency of the Patent, which finds mentioned in the report submitted to the Court by the learned Local Commissioner shall not be put to any commercial use by defendant No.1 save and except in accordance with any further order that may be passed by this Court in this regard in the suit proceedings.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 29, 2025 (Rishi) ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:25:28 :::CIS