Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. During the pendency of the first suit, in the meantime, on 2nd February 2012 (the defendant No.2 in CS(OS) 679/2013), BDR Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the BDR or BDR Pharma), a group company of BDR Life Sciences and under common control and management as alleged, wrote to the plaintiffs requesting for a voluntary license for IN 203937 to manufacture and market Dasatinib. The extracts of the said letter are reproduced hereunder:-

"We, BDR Pharmaceuticals Int'l Pvt Ltd are a pharmaceutical company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. We hold license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 with manufacturing facilities located at Vadodara which are GMP certified.

On 4th March, 2013, BDR Pharma applied for a compulsory license for IN 203937 before the Patent Controller. BDR Pharma did not inform the plaintiffs of the compulsory licensing application but as per the plaintiffs, they got to know about the same from newspaper reports. In the same period BDR also started advertising and offering for sale of Dasatinib Tablets under the head "Finished formulations"

on its website.

17. The above said acts of BDR and BDR Life Sciences created further apprehension in the mind of the plaintiffs that BDR or BDR Life Sciences intend to circumvent the ad-interim injunction granted in the first suit and they may introduce the drug by infringing the suit patent. The plaintiffs immediately filed fresh action being a suit bearing CS(OS) No.679 of 2013 against the defendants in the nature of a qui timet action for the infringement of IN 203937 ("Second Suit") on 11th April, 2013.

22. In the meantime, on 5th May, 2013 the Patent Controller considered the compulsory license application filed by BDR Pharma and opined that the BDR Pharma had not made out a prima face case for grant of a license as the applicant/ BDR Pharma did not make efforts to obtain a licence from the patentee on reasonable terms and conditions and relegated the applicant/ BDR Pharma to approach the plaintiffs for voluntary licence. Thereby, the learned controller by his order dated 29th October, 2013 rejected the application filed by BDR Pharma seeking compulsory licence holding that BDR Pharma did not follow the due procedure in law prior to making the application under Section 84 and thus the occasion to entertain application seeking compulsory licence has not arisen. In the meantime, BDR Pharma again contacted the plaintiffs to revive its negotiations for a voluntary license with the plaintiffs and they responded to letter of 13th March, 2012 on 10th May, 2013. The plaintiff responded to the said communication of 10th May, 2013 by way of letter dated 1st July, 2013 are reproduced here as under:

The talks again continued till 20th September 2013 when BDR abruptly ended the correspondence as they did not provide the information asked by the plaintiffs.

23. After that, it came to the knowledge from one sources that BDR Pharma and BDR Life Sciences had obtained manufacturing licenses for Dasatinib Tablets and Dasatinib BULK respectively and the plaintiffs filed an application seeking discovery in both the suits.

24. By order dated 1st October, 2013 passed in the first Suit, the Court directed BDR Life Sciences to disclose the manufacturing license for DASATINIB BULK.