Partly allowed

Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh v. Vipro Lifescience & Anr.

Delhi HC22 Nov 2016CS(COMM)/376/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court resolved a suit for permanent injunction and accounts. Plaintiff agreed to waive damages claims if defendants disclose export particulars. Defendants agreed to furnish details within two weeks. Court passed a decree for injunction pending disclosure.

What did the court decide?

Permanent injunction granted; defendants directed to furnish export particulars within two weeks; plaintiff not to press for damages or accounts pending disclosure.

Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh Vs Vipro Lifescience… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~29

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 376/2016 & IA No.4760/2016 (u/O 39 R-1&2 CPC) BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH ..... Plaintiff

¶4

Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Aditya Gupta & Mr. Utkarsh Srivastava, Advs.

¶5

Versus

¶6

VIPRO LIFESCIENCE & ANR. ..... Defendant

¶7

Through: Mr. Rahul Chitnis & Mr. Piyush Kumar, Advs. for D-1&2. Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Adv. for D-3.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 22.11.2016

¶12

This order is in continuation of the earlier orders dated 11^th August, 2016, 29^th August, 2016, 27^th September, 2016, 25^th October, 2016 and 21^st November, 2016.

¶13

In compliance of the aforesaid Mr. Girish Bhatt, Director of the respondent no.2 Vaishali Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. is present in the Court and his statement has been separately recorded.

¶14

The counsel for the plaintiff reiterates his statement, that the plaintiff would not press for any damages against the defendants if the defendants no.1&2 disclose the countries and the entities to whom the defendants no.1&2 have exported the drugs “VARDENAFIL” and “VARDENAFIL HYDROCHLORIDE”.

¶15

The counsel for the defendants no.1&2 draws attention to para 36 of the plaint to contend that the plaintiff has not even given any particulars of its claim for damages against the defendants and the present suit is a quia

¶16

CS(COMM) 376/2016

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

timet action and now that the defendants no.1&2 have given an undertaking and are willing to suffer a decree for permanent injunction as claimed, there is no basis for the plaintiff to demand from the defendants no.1&2 the particulars of the countries and entities to whom the defendants no.1&2 in the past exported the infringing drugs and the question of the plaintiff being entitled to continue the suit for damages if the defendants no.1&2 do not furnish the said particulars does not arise.

¶19

Per contra, the counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff had instituted as many as six suits in this Court to protect its patent and incurred expenses therein and all of which have been decreed. It is contended that the plaintiff will be unable to stem the infringement of its patent if different entities surreptitiously manufacture and export and upon plaintiff detecting, suffer decrees and another entity commences the same infringement. He has also contended that as per information available, the defendants no.1&2 have at least exported one consignment worth USD 25630 and the plaintiff would be entitled to pursue the suit for damages. It is contended that the plaintiff has sued for accounts and upon the plaintiff succeeding in the decree for rendition of accounts, the defendants no.1&2 in any case will have to furnish all the said particulars.

¶20

I have enquired from the counsel for the defendants no.1&2 of their hesitation in furnishing the said particulars.

¶21

The counsel for the defendants no.1&2 states that the defendants no.1&2 apprehend being involved in a fishing and roving enquiry.

¶22

CS(COMM) 376/2016

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

The counsel for the plaintiff has made it clear that once the defendants no.1&2 furnish such particulars to the plaintiff, there will be no claim or enquiry against the defendants no.1&2 and the plaintiff may take appropriate action in the foreign jurisdiction against the entities who imported from the defendants no.1&2.

¶25

The counsel for the defendants no.1&2 after consultation with the aforesaid Mr. Girish Bhatt, Director of the respondent no.2 Vaishali Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. present in Court states that the said particulars will be handed over to the counsel for the plaintiff within two weeks in the form of an affidavit of a Director of the defendant no.2 Company.

¶26

Binding the parties to aforesaid, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1&2 in terms of prayer paragraph 43 „a‟ and „b‟ of the plaint and by further directing that subject to the defendants furnishing to the counsel for the plaintiff information as aforesaid within the time aforesaid, the plaintiff shall not press for damages or for accounts against the defendants no.1&2.

¶27

Subject to the aforesaid, the parties to bear their own costs.

¶28

Decree sheet be drawn up.

¶29

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

¶30

NOVEMBER 22, 2016 „gsr‟..

¶31

CS(COMM) 376/2016

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh v. Vipro Lifescience & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh v. Vipro Lifescience & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Havells India Limited & Anr. Vs Havells Mobile Towers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

M/S Global Holding Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Syndicate Bank

Mr Atul Atri Vs M/S S. Suncon Realtors Private Limited & Ors.

Infosys Technology Limited Vs G-Infosys (P) Ltd. Af+

Mr Madhu Vijayan Vs Mr Deepan Sivaraman & Anr.

M/S Golden Chocolates Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Aish Enterprises

M/S Babu Ram Om Prakash Vs the Shahnaz Husain Group of Companies

Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. & Anr. Vs M/S Jyoti Enterprises & Anr.

Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Vs S.B.L.Industries

Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited Vs M/S Western Express(Services)

Radhey Shyam Sharma & Anr. Vs Satish & Ors.

Sh. Prem Chand and Ors. Vs Sh Daya Chand and Ors.

S Randhir Singh Chandhok Vs Shri Atma Ram Bansal & Ors.

Mrs Geeta Vij Vs Mrs Rashmi Chhabra & Anr.