Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

AMIT BANSAL, J.

I.A. 6797/2019 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC) in CS(COMM)239/2019 I.A. 6802/2019 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC) in CS(COMM) 240/2019 I.A. 5801/2022 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC) in CS(COMM) 236/2022 I.A. 5806/2022 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC) in CS(COMM) 237/2022 I.A. 5811/2022 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC) in CS(COMM) 238/2022 I.A. 7109/2022 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC) in CS(COMM) 296/2022

1. The present six suits have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff no.1, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg and its group company, plaintiff no.2, Boehringer Ingelheim (India) Pvt. Ltd, against various defendants, who are Indian Pharmaceutical Companies, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing Indian Patent No. IN 243301 titled "8 - (3 AMINOPIPERIDIN-1-YL)-XANTHINE COMPOUNDS". All the aforesaid six suits were accompanied by CS(COMM) 239/2019 and connected matters Page Signing 4 of 73 16:41:19 Date:29.03.2023 2023:DHC:2268 applications for grant of interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

Proceedings in the suits

2. Summons in CS(COMM) 239/2019 and CS(COMM) 240/2019 were issued on 10th May, 2019 and an ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from manufacturing LINAGLIPTIN tablets and the said interim order has continued till date.

3. Summons in CS(COMM) 236/2022, CS(COMM)237/2022 and CS(COMM) 238/2022 were issued on 19th April, 2022 and the following interim/pro tem arrangement was arrived at between the parties and the said arrangement has continued till date:

87. In view of my findings above, it would not be necessary to consider other grounds of revocation raised in the suits, which shall be considered at the stage of the trial.

Balance of convenience

88. Finally, I would address the issue with regard to balance of convenience and irreparable injury, the fundamental principles which govern the grant of interim injunction.

i. Whether balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for the grant of interim injunction? ii. Whether the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury on account of non-grant of interim injunction?

96. In view of the discussion above, the plaintiffs have failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction. Balance of convenience is in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. Irreparable injury would be caused not only to the defendants but also to the public, if the interim injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

97. Accordingly, all the applications in the aforesaid suits for grant of interim injunction are dismissed with costs of Rs 2,00,000/- to each of the defendants. In addition, costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- are also awarded in favour of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee on account of detriment caused to the public interest.