Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The Plaintiffs claim to have patented compound Vildagliptin, which treats Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) under Patent No. 212815.

5. The Plaintiffs state that Defendant has included Plaintiffs patented compound Vildagliptin in the list of API on its website, namely, http://www.ranbaxy.com/products/api-search. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant has not yet launched the earlier said product and there is an immense threat that the Defendant may launch Vildagliptin in the market any time. The Plaintiffs claim that in addition to the product Patent No. 212815, Plaintiff no. 1 is also the proprietor of a number of other patents and patent applications, protecting specific aspects of Vildagliptin. Plaintiff no. 1 holds a process patent for the manufacture of Vildagliptin vide Patent No. 229761. In addition, Plaintiff no. 1 holds three patent applications pending before the Indian Patent Office, namely 2669/CHENP/2006, 9707/CHENP/2012 and 2045/DELNP/2008 related respectively to Vildagliptin formulations and Vildagliptin and Metformin Hydrochloride formulations. The application 2669/CHENP/2006 has been rejected by the Indian Patent Office and appeal against the rejection is pending.

10. In paras 30 to 33 of the plaint, the Plaintiffs have described the claims of the suit patent and the structure of the compound which corresponds to Vildagliptin.

11. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that extensive research and development into anti-diabetic compounds was carried out by the Plaintiffs before the invention of Vildagliptin to test its ability to inhibit the DPP-4 enzyme and for their potential to be further developed as pharmaceutical products for treatment of Type 2 diabetes. The Plaintiffs have given the details of the potency and duration of the effect of Vildagliptin.

12. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the Plaintiffs were surprised to receive copies of caveat filed by the Defendant in various jurisdictions including Delhi High Court on 18.08.2014. The caveat did not mention any subject matter of the apprehended dispute such as trademarks, patents, copyright or design. It is alleged that considering that the Plaintiffs have off-late taken action against various generic pharmaceutical companies for infringement of their patents pertaining to Vildagliptin, the Plaintiffs accessed the Defendant's website to investigate if there is any indication to the Defendant proposing to launch Vildagliptin. It is stated that the Plaintiffs were surprised by the Defendant's website which displays Vildagliptin under the API product category as 'Anti-diabetic drug' without any regulatory status. On making survey, the Plaintiffs did not come across any information that the Defendant had either begin manufacturing or infringing Vildagliptin in an API form or in pharmaceutical products containing Vildagliptin either alone or in combination with any other compound. Plaintiff no. 2 also engaged services of an independent research firm, namely, Strategic Analysis India Pvt. Ltd. (SAI) to conduct the research and survey of the Defendant in order to ascertain whether the Defendant has launched or commenced business in relation to Vildagliptin in API form. The survey report dated 26.08.2014 confirmed that although there is yet no manufacture, launch or sale of Vildagliptin either in API form or pharmaceutical products containing Vildagliptin alone or Vildagliptin in combination with any other compound by the Defendant, yet it proposes to do so. Thus, the Plaintiffs filed the instant suit and sought ad interim injunction.

23. I have perused the record and given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised on behalf of the parties.

24. It is established from the host of documents placed on record that the Plaintiffs were granted product patent no. 21285 in respect of compound Vildagliptin on 14.12.2007, effective from 10.12.1998. Thus, application for this patent was in public domain for the last sixteen years and no objection whatsoever has even been raised by the Defendant. It is only on 11.08.2014 that the Defendant has filed a revocation petition (although the learned senior counsel denies the Plaintiffs having received any notice of the revocation petition). Another objection raised at this stage against protecting the Plaintiffs by an interim injunction is that the compound which may be launched by the Defendant is different from the API Vildagliptin. The learned senior counsel on behalf of the Defendant urges that the Plaintiffs own application IN4530/DELNP/2007 dated 13.06.2007 which itself speaks volumes that crystalline form of Vildagliptin is different from API Vildagliptin and therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot claim any proprietary right therein, the same being in public domain as the application was abandoned.