Disposed¶16

Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v. Hetero Labs Limited & Ors.

Delhi HC17 Mar 2025CS(COMM)/76/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 25.02.2025; terms of settlement to form part of the decree and bind the parties; Registry directed to draw up the decree; Plaintiffs entitled to refund of 50% of court fees deposited; suit disposed of along with pending applications. ¶16

Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. Vs Hetero Labs Limited & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the Defendants and their affiliates/representatives were dealing in the product 'NITIB' (including IBRUTINIB and any forms thereof) so as to infringe the claimed subject matter of Plaintiffs' Indian Patent No. 262968, warranting a decree of permanent injunction.

¶10

Court's answer

In light of the settlement between the parties embodied in the Settlement Agreement dated 25.02.2025, the suit is decreed in terms of the settlement; the terms of settlement form part of the decree and bind the parties.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Since the matter has been settled, keeping in mind the spirit of Section 89 CPC and in terms of Section 16A of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the Plaintiffs are entitled to refund of 50% of the court fees deposited by them.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Pharmacyclics LLC & Anr. v. Hetero Labs Limited & Ors. (Delhi High Court, CS(COMM) 76/2021, decided 17.03.2025 by Jyoti Singh, J.): Patent infringement suit concerning the product 'NITIB' (including IBRUTINIB and forms thereof), alleged to infringe Plaintiffs' Indian Patent No. 262968, was disposed of upon amicable settlement. Pursuant to resolution before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and a Settlement Agreement dated 25.02.2025, the suit was decreed in terms of the settlement; the terms of settlement form part of the decree and bind the parties. The Defendants had paid Rs.60 lacs to Plaintiff No. 2, exclusive of taxes, as full and final settlement of damages and costs claims. The Registry was directed to draw up the decree, and the Plaintiffs were held entitled to refund of 50% of the court fees deposited, keeping in mind the spirit of Section 89 CPC and in terms of Section 16A of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

¶1

$~28

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 76/2021 & CC (COMM) 8/2021, I.A. 2299/2021, 13391/2021

¶4

PHARMACYCLICS LLC & ANR. .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

HETERO LABS LIMITED & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Tahir A.J., Advocate.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶9

O R D E R % 17.03.2025

¶10

This suit was preferred on behalf of the Plaintiffs seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and their affiliates/ representatives etc. from making, using, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale, and in any other manner, directly or indirectly, dealing in any product particularly 'NITIB' which infringes the claimed subject matter of Plaintiffs’ Indian Patent No. 262968 or any claims thereof, including IBRUTINIB and any forms thereof.

¶11

Mr. Anand, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs submits that parties have amicably resolved and settled the disputes before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and pursuant thereto have executed a Settlement Agreement dated 25.02.2025. It is further stated that as per one of the terms of settlement, Defendants were to pay a sum of Rs.60 lacs to Plaintiff No. 2, exclusive of all taxes, as full and final settlement of the

¶12

CS(COMM) 76/2021 Page 1 of 2

¶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 24/03/2025 at 14:33:05

¶14

claims of the Plaintiffs as regards damages and costs in the present proceedings within 10 business days of receipt of the invoice and that the said amount has been paid. In this light, it is urged that the suit be decreed in terms of the settlement.

¶15

In light of the settlement arrived between the parties, terms of which are incorporated in the Settlement Agreement executed on 25.02.2025, the suit is decreed. Terms of settlement shall form part of the decree and shall bind the parties thereto.

¶16

Registry is directed to draw up the decree in terms of the settlement.

¶17

Since the matter has been settled, keeping in mind the spirit of Section 89 CPC and in terms of Section 16A of the Court Fees Act, 1870, Plaintiffs are entitled to refund of 50% of the Court fees deposited by them.

¶18

Suit stands disposed of along with pending applications.

¶19

JYOTI SINGH, J

¶20

MARCH 17, 2025/shivam

¶21

CS(COMM) 76/2021 Page 2 of 2

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 24/03/2025 at 14:33:05

Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v. Hetero Labs Limited & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v. Hetero Labs Limited & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Glaxo Group Ltd. Vs United Biotech P. Ltd.

Bridgestone Corporation Vs Divi Automotive and Petrochem India & Anr.

Mannat Group of Hotels Private Limited & Anr. Vs M/S Mannat Dhaba & Ors.

Johnson & Johnson Vs Pritamdas Arora T/a M/S Medserve & Anr.

Devdarshan Dhoop Industries & Anr. Vs Adhyatmik Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Thirumalai Chemicals Limited Vs Saurabh Sharma (Trading as M/S Rds Chemicals) & Ors.

Apnatime Tech Private Limited and Anr. Vs Anik Dev Nath and Others

M/S Arbro Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs M/S Maiden Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Vashim Ahmad Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Savita Taneja Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Rajender Singh Advocate Vs the Chairperson Election Committee & Ors.

Mr. Amrish Aggarwal Trading as M/S Mahalaxmi Product Vs M/S Venus Home Applicances Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Firdaus Production Private Limited Vs Unisys Infosolutions Private Limited

Devdarshan Dhoop Industries & Anr. Vs Adhyatmik Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.