NOVARTIS AG AND ORS. v. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.
In The High Court of Delhi
Plaintiffs filed a suit against the Defendant towards infringement of it’s Patent being Patent No. 212815 for active pharmaceutical ingredient called Vildagliptin which treats Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus marketed as GALVUS and GALVUSMET.
Defendant has included Plaintiffs’ patented compound Vildagliptin in the list of API on its website and thus there is an immense threat that the Defendant may launch Vildagliptin in the market any time.
Keeping in mind the law laid down in Wander Ltd. & Anr. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. (Status Quo to be maintained) and in view of the fact that Plaintiffs’ Patent is an established patent which is valid up to 8th December, 2019, the Plaintiffs have a good prima facie case and the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiffs as the Defendant has not yet commenced production.
Defendant has already filed a Revocation Petition before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, seeking revocation of the suit patent on 11.08.2014 as the same is invalid.
The Plaintiffs have concealed material facts from this Hon’ble Court towards it’s other abandoned patent applications.
The Patent was filed in 1999. Application for this patent was in public domain for the last sixteen years and no objection whatsoever has even been raised by the Defendant till August, 2014.
The fact that the Defendant now in the year 2014 has applied for the revocation of the suit patent prima facie shows that the Defendant wants to launch the compound patented in the suit patent.
The balance of convenience also lies in preserving the status quo as the Defendant is yet to launch Vildagliptin, though the Defendant says that the same is in crystalline form.
Defendant is restrained from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale either directly or indirectly dealing in active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), compounds or formulations containing Vildagliptin or Vildagliptin in combination with any other compound as may amount to infringement of Indian Patent No. 212815 of the Plaintiffs.
Author’s Comments – The observations in the present case are only tentative in nature as the Defendant had not filed it’s reply and/or written statement. The order has been filed only on account of urgency in the matter and may take a different turn once the Defendant files it’s Written Statement. The matter was filed on 4th September, 2014 and was listed on 5th September, 2014, wherein the Defendant appeared as they were on Caveat. The matter was heard and was reserved for orders on 8th September, 2014. The matter may again be heard in detail in some time, once the Defendant files it’s written statement and tries to get the injunction vacated.
However, as the Defendant has not launched it’s product and has been restrained from doing so, the balance of convenience lies largely in favour of the Plaintiff.