Partly allowed

Novartis Ag, Lichtstrasse v. Cassel Research Laboratories

Madras HC3 Sept 2014CS/358/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the defendant for alleged patent infringement regarding Vildagliptin formulations. Upon hearing, the court noted the defendant's affidavit stating no objection to the suit and no intent to manufacture. The court decreed the suit for a permanent injunction (prayer 'a') and dismissed other prayers, closing the connected original application by cons

What did the court decide?

Decreed for permanent injunction (prayer 'a'). Dismissed as not pressed prayers 'b' and 'c'. Connected Original Application closed.

Novartis Ag, Lichtstrasse Vs Cassel Research Laboratories — Company and Corporate | 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.358 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

Cassel Research Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. P K 19, PV Industrial Estate, Ekkattuthangal, Channai-600 097 ... Defendant

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

of Civil Procedure, seeking a judgment and decree of

¶17

permanent injunction restraining the defendant by

¶18

themselves or through their directors, group company or

¶19

wings, associates, divisions, assigns in business,

¶20

licensees, franchisees, agents, distributors and dealers from using, manufacturing, importing, selling, offering for sale, exporting, directly or indirectly dealing in

¶21

pharmaceutical products, compound or formulation containing Vildagliptin alone or Vildagliptin + Metformin

¶22

Hydrochloride in combination or Vildagliptin in combination

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

with any other compound or formulation or in any other form as may amount to infringement of Indian Patent No.212815 of the first plaintiff and for delivery up of all the stock of 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 and for rendition of accounts of profits earned by the 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.

¶26

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

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

2.The suit has been filed by plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant by themselves or through their directors, group company or 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 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.

¶32

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

¶33

2.“...It is submitted that the defendant company has neither manufactured not intends to

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant....”

¶38

4.Having considered the submission made by both the learned counsel, I find it just and reasonable to pass the decree in terms of the consensus arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, recording the

¶39

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 in view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs, the suit is dismissed as not pressed in so far as prayers 'b' and 'c' are concerned. Consequently, connected Original Application is closed. No order as to costs.

¶40

sd/.S.T.J 03.09.2014

¶41

//Certified to be a true copy//

¶42

Dated this the day of 2016 R.s/08.02.2016 COURT OFFICER

¶43

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

¶44

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

Novartis Ag, Lichtstrasse v. Cassel Research Laboratories

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Novartis Ag, Lichtstrasse v. Cassel Research Laboratories

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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 Tanmed Pharmaceuticals

N.Hiriyan Vs B.Sivakumar

G.Balakrishnan Vs K.Jayalakshmi