Disposed

Eli Lilly and Company and Anr. v. Natco Pharma Limited and Anr.

Delhi HC13 May 2024CS(COMM)/183/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court disposed of a suit for infringement of Patent No. IN 297760 by Eli Lilly against NATCO Pharma. The court accepted an undertaking by defendants not to launch the product Abemaciclib until patent expiry or invalidation and recorded the reservation of rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed based on defendants' undertaking not to launch Abemaciclib until patent expiry; court fees refunded to plaintiff.

Eli Lilly and Company and Anr. Vs Natco Pharma Limited… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 183/2020

¶4

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY AND ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Prachi Agarwal, Ms. Ridhie Bajaj and Ms. Elisha Sinha, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

NATCO PHARMA LIMITED AND ANR. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. G. Nataraj, Mr. Shashikant Yadav and Mr. Rahul Bhujbal, Advocates. Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, ASC, GNCTD with Mr. Arjun Basra, Advocate for IFSO, SPl. Cell, Delhi Police.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 13.05.2024

¶10

The Plaintiffs’ present suit pertains to Indian Patent bearing No. IN 297760. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are indulging in infringing activities in relation to the suit patent.

¶11

However, Mr. G. Nataraj, counsel for the Defendants, on the other hand, on instructions, denies the allegations made in the suit. He nonetheless states that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 will not be launching any product containing Abemaciclib till the expiry of the suit patent i.e. 15^th December, 2029 or until it is invalidated.

¶12

Mr. Nataraj also states that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have not commercially launched any product of any kind in relation to Abemaciclib

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2024 at 11:59:56

¶14

till date.

¶15

Furthermore, Mr. Nataraj states that Defendant No. 1 reserves all their rights its rights in law, including the provisions of Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 to carry out such activity in relation to the development and submission of the information in India or elsewhere where the law provides for, or mandates the submission of such information and material and data.

¶16

In light of the aforenoted statement made by Mr. Nataraj, Mr. Anand states that no further directions are being sought against Defendant No. 3 and the suit can be disposed of. However, he clarifies that the Plaintiffs reserve their right to take appropriate action, in case the need so arises in any time in future.

¶17

The aforenoted statement made by Mr. Nataraj shall bind the Defendants and the suit is decreed in the above terms.

¶18

In the event of any breach of the aforenoted terms of settlement, by either party, parties shall have all rights and remedies, as are available in law.

¶19

In light of the fact that the suit is being resolved on amicable terms, Mr. Anand’s request for refund of Court fees is accepted. Registry is directed to refund full Court fees to the Plaintiff.

¶20

With the above directions, the suit is disposed of.

¶21

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶22

MAY 13, 2024 nk

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2024 at 11:59:56

Eli Lilly and Company and Anr. v. Natco Pharma Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eli Lilly and Company and Anr. v. Natco Pharma Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Foundry Visionmongers Limited Vs Vaw World Innovation Private Limited & Ors.

Dolphin Mart Private Limited Vs Avenue Supermarts Limited & Anr.

Phi Learning Private Ltd. Vs Ubs Publishers Distributors Pvt. Ltd.

Choice Hotels International, Inc. Vs Oravel Stays Private Limited & Ors.

Glaxo Group Limited Vs Anac Healthcare LLP

M/S Jaquar and Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Yousaf Thottasseri

Greytrix India Private Limited & Anr. Vs Mynd Solutions Private Limited

Flamagas, S.A. & Anr. Vs Gurbachan Singh & Anr.

The Foundry Visionmongers Limited Vs Vaw World Innovation Private Limited & Ors.

Hindustan Distilleries Vs Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks & Anr.

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs John Doe and Others

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh and Co. Kg & Anr. Vs Natco Pharma Limited

M/S Hari Chand Shri Gopal Vs Mr Sahabuddin Mondal Trading as M/S. Salma Zarda Works

Romsons Scientific and Surgical Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asst. Registrar of Trademarks and Anr.