Delhi High Court - Orders
And Notarised Documents And ... vs Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd on 8 July, 2020
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 243/2020
I.A. 5323/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
I.A. 5324/2020 (under Order XI Rule 1 (6) Commercial Courts Act)
I.A. 5325/2020 (under Order XI Rule 1 (4) Commercial Courts Act)
I.A. 5326/2020 (exemption from filing original, clearer copies etc.
and notarised documents and affidavits)
I.A. 5327/2020 (exemption from filing court fees)
BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH & ANR...... Plaintiff
Represented by: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Dhruv Anand,
Ms. Udita Patro, Ms. Kavya
Mammen, Ms. Sampurnaa Sanyal,
Advocates.
versus
TITAN LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. ..... Defendant
Represented by:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 08.07.2020 The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing. I.A. 5326/2020 (exemption from filing original, clearer copies etc. and notarised documents and affidavits) I.A. 5327/2020 (exemption from filing court fees)
1. By these two applications the plaintiff seek exemption from filing the certified copies, notarized documents and the Court fees at this stage.
2. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
3. Notarized documents, affidavits in support of the plaint and application as also the Court fees be filed within one week of the resumption CS(COMM) 243/2020 Page 1 of 4 of the normal Court functioning.
4. Applications are disposed of.
I.A. 5325/2020 (under Order XI Rule 1 (4) Commercial Courts Act)
1. Additional documents if any be filed within 30 days.
2. Application is disposed of.
CS(COMM) 243/2020 & I.A. 5323/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC) I.A. 5324/2020 (under Order XI Rule 1 (6) Commercial Courts Act)
1. Plaint be registered as suit.
2. Issue summons in the suit and notice in the applications to the defendants through e-mail/SMS/Whatsapp returnable before this Court on 14th September, 2020.
3. Written statement and reply affidavit if any to the applications be filed by the defendant within 30 days. Replication and rejoinder affidavit within three weeks thereafter.
4. Plaintiff No.1 is a company incorporated under the laws of Germany, the proprietor of the suit patent IN 211300 (in short IN „300) that covers and claims the compound RIVAROXABAN. Plaintiff No.2 is also a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which holds the registration and permission under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 to import the compound RIVAROXABAN covered by the suit patent. The plaintiff No.1 thus markets/ offers for sale the compound RIVAROXABAN in India through Plaintiff No.2 under the trademark XARELTO®. Plaintiff also sells the compound through its licensee in India.
5. The plaintiff‟s patent for the compound RIVAROXABAN is registered in 60 countries across the world and is valid till 11 th December, CS(COMM) 243/2020 Page 2 of 4 2020 in India. The validity of the plaintiff‟s suit patent has been acknowledged by number of third parties. Decrees have been passed in favour of the plaintiff in other suits filed, upholding the proprietary right of the plaintiff in the suit patent. It is the case of the plaintiff that neither any pre-grant nor any post-grant opposition has been filed to the suit patent till date much less by the defendant.
6. Grievance of the plaintiff is that defendant has though not launched the product RIVAROXABAN in India but from India is exporting and there is evidence that it has exported to at least two Peruvian entities and that too in large quantities in May, 2020. The two Peruvian entities have commenced commercial dealing in RIVAROXABAN in Peru. From investigation it is further revealed that at least two shipments of "MEZOSER-S" the brand name in which the defendant is dealing and selling RIVAROXABAN have been exported from India.
7. During investigation plaintiff‟s investigator has also found defendant‟s entity was in the business of dealing in pharmaceutical products and contract manufacturing and offering WHO-GMP facility for contract manufacturing Pellets, Granules, Capsules, Sahets and Tablets for their domestic and foreign clients. On the website of the defendant in its product list as available, "Rivaroxaban IR Tablets I0/25/20 mg" is listed as one of its anticoagulant product.
8. Considering the facts that exports have been of finished RIVAROXABAN products and that too in commercial quantities, the defendant primarily is not exempted under Section 107-A of the Patents Act and use of the defendant while exporting will be considered as use in India.
9. Considering the averments in the plaint and the documents filed CS(COMM) 243/2020 Page 3 of 4 therewith, plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case in its favour and in case no ad-interim injunction is granted the plaintiffs would suffer an irreparable loss. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs.
10. Consequently, an ad-interim ex-parte injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant in terms of prayer (i) of Para 22 of I.A. 5323/2020.
11. Compliance under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be done within one week.
12. List the suit and applications on 14th September, 2020.
13. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JULY 08, 2020 'ga' CS(COMM) 243/2020 Page 4 of 4