Partly allowed

Novartis Ag, Lichtstrasse v. Tanmed Pharmaceuticals

Madras HC3 Sept 2014CS/357/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court decreed a civil suit filed by Novartis against Tanmed Pharmaceuticals for permanent injunction regarding patent infringement of Vildagliptin. Relying on the defendant's affidavit consenting to the injunction decree, the court granted prayer 'a' but dismissed prayers 'b' and 'c' due to the plaintiffs dropping those requests.

What did the court decide?

Decree for permanent injunction granted pursuant to defendant's affidavit; prayers for delivery up of stock and rendition of accounts dismissed.

Novartis Ag, Lichtstrasse Vs Tanmed Pharmaceuticals — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 03.09.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN

¶6

C.S. No.357 of 2014

¶7

1.Novartis AG

¶8

2.Novartis Health Care Pvt. Limited

¶9

rep. by its Power of Attorney Suyash Valanj 3.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

¶10

rep. by its Power of Attorney Amod J.Deo

¶11

... Plaintiffs

¶12

¶13

Tanmed Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

¶14

18, Dr.Ambedkar Road,

¶15

Kodambakkam, Channai-600 024. ... Defendant

¶16

Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side

¶17

Rules of the High Court read with Order VII Rule 1 of Code

¶18

of Civil Procedure seeking a judgment and decree of

¶19

permanent injunction restraining the defendant by themselves or through their directors, group company or

¶20

wings, associates, divisions, assigns in business,

¶21

licensees, franchisees, agents, distributors and dealers from using, manufacturing, importing, selling, offering for

¶22

sale, exporting, directly or indirectly dealing in pharmaceutical products, compound or formulation containing Vildagliptin alone or Vildagliptin + Metformin

¶23

Hydrochloride in combination or Vildagliptin in combination

¶24

with any other compound or formulation or in any other form https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

as may amount to infringement of Indian Patent No.212815 of

¶26

¶27

the first plaintiff and for delivery up of all the stock of

¶28

infringing pharmaceutical formulations, compound or combinations comprising Vildagliptin alone and/or Vildagliptin in combination with Metformin Hydrochloride or any other compound or formulation available with the defendant to an authorised representative of the plaintiffs

¶29

and for rendition of accounts of profits earned by the

¶30

defendant for manufacture and sale of infringing pharmaceutical products, compound or formulation or combination containing Vildagliptin alone or Vildagliptin in combination in any form and a decree for the amount so found due may be passed or in the alternative damages be ascertained by this Court and a decree for damages as ascertained be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

¶31

For Plaintiffs : Mr.Sathish Parasaran For Defendant : Mr.J.Antony Jesus

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Heard the learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs as well as the defendant.

¶34

2.The suit has been filed by plaintiffs seeking

¶35

permanent injunction restraining the defendant by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

themselves or through their directors, group company or

¶37

¶38

wings, associates, divisions, assigns in business, licensees, franchisees, agents, distributors and dealers from using, manufacturing, importing, selling, offering for sale, exporting, directly or indirectly dealing in pharmaceutical products, compound or formulation containing Vildagliptin alone or Vildagliptin + Metformin

¶39

Hydrochloride in combination or Vildagliptin in combination with any other compound or formulation or in any other form as may amount to infringement of Indian Patent No.212815 relating to the first plaintiff and other reliefs.

¶40

3.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs submitted that the suit itself could be decided, in view of the no objection raised by the defendant by way of filing affidavit in the Original Application. Para No.2 of the said affidavit reads as follows:

¶41

2.“...It is submitted that the defendant company

¶42

has neither manufactured not intends to manufacture any formulation VILDAGLIPTIN till the plaintiffs' patent is valid and that the defendant company has no objection if the present suit is disposed of in terms of the affidavit and a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant....”

¶43

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶44

4.Having considered the submission made by both the

¶45

¶46

learned counsel, I find it just and reasonable to pass the

¶47

decree in terms of the consensus arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, recording the said averments made in the affidavit dated 18.08.2014, filed by the defendant, the suit is decreed, in so far as prayer 'a' is concerned and

¶48

in view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs not pressing the prayer 'b' & 'c', the suit is dismissed in so far as prayers 'b' and 'c' are

¶49

concerned. Consequently, connected Original Application is

¶50

closed. No order as to costs.

¶51

sd/.S.T.J 03.09.2014 //Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2015. R.s/18.09.2015 COURT OFFICER

¶52

From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.

¶53

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Novartis Ag, Lichtstrasse v. Tanmed Pharmaceuticals

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Novartis Ag, Lichtstrasse v. Tanmed Pharmaceuticals

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Will of T.S.Kannan Vs G.Elangovan

A.Kumaresan Vs the Board of Directors

K.Chandrasekaran Vs S.v.Angappan

Novartis Ag, Lichtstrasse Vs Cassel Research Laboratories

N.Hiriyan Vs B.Sivakumar

G.Balakrishnan Vs K.Jayalakshmi