Bristol Myers Squibb Company And Anr vs V.C Bhutada And Ors on 27 February, 2019

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Bristol Myers Squibb Company And Anr vs V.C Bhutada And Ors on 27 February, 2019

Bench: J.R. Midha

$~O-5
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+    CS(COMM) 199/2018 & CC 9/2015 & I.A.20765/2015

     BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY AND ANR ..... Plaintiffs
                  Through: Mr.Nishchal Anand, Advocate for
                           plaintiffs

                         versus

     V.C BHUTADA AND ORS                                ..... Defendants
                  Through:            Mr.Ramesh Babu, Ms. Manisha
                                      Singh, Mr.Varun Sharma, Ms.Swati
                                      Setia and Mr.Gautam Kumar,
                                      Advocates for D-2
                                      Ms.Rajeshwari, Mr.Gaurav Barathi
                                      and Mr.Shashwat Dubey, Advocates
                                      for D-3

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

            ORDER

%           27.02.2019

CS(COMM) 199/2018
1.   The following issues are framed:
     i.     Whether Mr. Pheroze Khan has been duly authorized by the

plaintiff No.1 to institute the present suit? OPP ii. Whether the plaintiff No.1 is the proprietor of the Indian patent No. 203937? OPP iii. Whether the defendants have infringed the plaintiffs' patent No.203937 and if so, to what effect? OPP iv. Whether the plaintiffs' patent is invalid as claimed by the defendants? OPD v. Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit? OPD vi. Whether DASATINIB MONOHYDRATE salt is not covered under the suit patent No. 203937? OPD 2 vii. Whether the suit is not maintainable against defendant No.3 on the ground of pendency of earlier suit CS(COMM) 1125/2016? OPD3 viii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction and damages as prayed for? OPP ix. Relief.

2. The list of witnesses be filed by both the parties within two weeks.

3. The plaintiffs shall file the evidence by way of affidavit of all the witnesses, who are not required to be summoned, within four weeks. With respect to witnesses, who are required to be summoned, the plaintiff shall file application for summoning those witnesses within four weeks.

4. Learned counsels for the parties agree that this suit be consolidated with CS(COMM) 1125/2016 and the evidence recorded in that suit be read in both the suits. This suit is consolidated with CS(COMM) 1125/2016.

5. It is submitted that Mr. A.S. Yadav, District and Session Judge (Retired) was appointed as Local Commissioner in CS(COMM) 1125/2016 vide order dated 27th January, 2017 and the evidence of the plaintiffs has to commence in that case. The learned Local Commissioner appointed in CS(COMM)1125/2016 shall continue to record the evidence in that suit which shall be read in both the suits.

6. Considering that both the suits have been consolidated today, the plaintiff is permitted to file a supplementary affidavit to cover the evidence in the present suit as well.

7. Record of CS(COMM)1125/2016 be returned back.

8. List before the Joint Registrar to examine the status of the recording of the evidence on 23rd July, 2019.

I.A. 17000/2012

9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendants have not yet commenced the commercial manufacture of the impugned patent compound. Defendants No.1 and 2 are directed to inform this Court whenever they propose to manufacture the impugned compound and this application shall be considered at that stage.

J.R. MIDHA, J.

FEBRUARY 27, 2019 ds

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders