Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Novartis Ag & Anr vs Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited on 8 October, 2020

Author: Rajiv Shakdher

Bench: Rajiv Shakdher

                          $~3
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          +      CS (COMM) No. 425/2020 & I.A. Nos. 9072-74/2020

                                 NOVARTIS AG & ANR.                                          .....Plaintiffs
                                              Through :            Mr. Hemant Singh, Adv.

                                                     versus

                                 TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED             .....Defendant
                                             Through : Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv. with
                                                       Ms. Rajeshwari H. and Saif Rehman,
                                                       Advs.

                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                                         ORDER

% 08.10.2020 [Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19] I.A. No. 9074/2020

1. Allowed. The plaintiffs are permitted to file additional documents. 1.1 The additional documents will be filed within 30 days from today. CS (COMM) No. 425/2020 & I.A. Nos. 9072-73/2020

2. The case which the plaintiffs have, broadly, set up is one of infringement of the Indian patent no. 229051 [hereafter referred to as "the suit patent"].

2.1 The plaintiffs claim that they are producing a pharmaceutical composition consisting of sacubitril and valsartan. The product is sold under the brand name "Vymada".

                          CS(COMM)No.425/2020                                                page 1 of 3




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:10.10.2020
13:08:11
                           2.2    It is claimed that the said drug reduces the risk of cardiovascular
                          complications.
                          2.3    The grievance of the plaintiffs, presently, is that the defendant has

obtained approval of the Directorate General of Health Services for manufacturing a Fixed-Dose combination of sacubitril and valsartan which, according to them, infringes the suit patent.

3. Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the defendant, says that the assertions made by the plaintiffs are incorrect.

3.1 According to Mr. Sindhwani, the defendant uses a supra molecular complex [amorphous] of the concerned compounds i.e. sacubitril and valsartan and skirts clear of the charge of infringing the suit patent. 3.2 It is also Mr. Sindhwani‟s assertion that the plaintiffs have filed an application for obtaining a patent for supra molecular complex [amorphous] in India which is, presently, pending consideration. 3.3 I am also informed by Mr. Sindhwani that the defendant has moved for revocation of the suit patent before the IPAB. 3.4 It is Mr. Sindhwani‟s say, though, that the step taken towards revocation of the suit patent is de hors the defendant‟s claim that what the defendant proposes to manufacture is different from what is protected by the suit patent.

3.5 Mr. Sindhwani goes on to say that the plaintiffs have not only obtained patent for the subject drug in the United States of America [USA] but have also launched proceedings against the defendant in the USA.

CS(COMM)No.425/2020 page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:10.10.2020 13:08:11 3.6 According to Mr. Sindhwani, the concerned court in the USA has not injuncted the defendant.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Hemant Singh, who appears on behalf of the plaintiffs, says that Mr. Sindhwani‟s contention, in this behalf, is not correct.

5. On being queried, Mr. Sindhwani informs me that the defendant has not, as yet, commenced manufacture of a drug involving usage of supra molecular complex [amorphous] pertaining to the aforementioned compounds i.e. sacubitril and valsartan.

6. Given the aforesaid backdrop, issue summons in the suit and notice in the captioned applications.

6.1 Ms. Rajeshwari H. accepts service on behalf of the defendant. 6.2 A written statement in the suit and replies to the captioned applications will be filed within two weeks from today. Replication and rejoinders thereto, if any, will be filed before the next date of hearing.

7. The defendant will approach the Court, at least two weeks prior to the date when it proposes to commence its manufacturing activity. This information will also be furnished to the plaintiffs.

8. List the matter on 11.12.2020.



                                                                                  RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
                          OCTOBER 08, 2020
                          Aj/KK
                                                                 Click here to check corrigendum, if any
                          CS(COMM)No.425/2020                                                 page 3 of 3




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:10.10.2020
13:08:11