Page 30 - A&A Patents&Design Rewind-2016

SUIT DECREED FOR DELAYED FILING OF REPLY BY

THE DEFENDANTS for another three months which the Registrar was
willing to permit in the interest of natural justice,
The trio of the three pharmaceutical giants, subject to the payment of costs of INR 30000 (~
Sugen Inc., Pfizer Inc., and Pfizer Products
India Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against generic
pharmaceutical companies named SP Accure Labs USD 447) to the Plaintiffs. The Single Judge of the

Pvt. Ltd. and Accure Labs Pvt. Ltd. and an online Delhi High Court however, did not agree with the

pharmacy, Modern Times Helpline Pharma for a Registrar’s stand. According to Court, the delay of

permanent injunction. Vide this suit, they aimed to 229 days in filing the written statement is contrary

restrain the Defendants from infringing their Patent to the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division

No. 209251 which covers their anti-cancer drug and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts

Sunitinib. Act of 2015 which permits only 120 days for filing

A temporary injunction was granted to the Plaintiff the written statement. The purpose of the amendment to
which restrained the Defendants from making, The purpose of the the Civil Procedure Code was to
using, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting, amendment to the take away the discretion available
offering for sale and in any manner, directly or Civil Procedure Code to the Court in accepting delayed
indirectly, dealing in any drug that infringes the was to take away the documents. Consequently, the Court
Plaintiff’s patent. discretion available to refused to take on record the written
the Court in accepting statement of the Defendants.
The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division delayed documents.
Consequently, the

and Commercial Appellate Division of High Court refused to take on record the written

Courts Act of 2015 allows Defendants in a suit, a statement of the Defendants. Under Order 8

120 day period for filing their reply to the plaint Rule 10 of CPC, where the Defendant’s defence

(written statement). In the instant case, the is struck off, the suit can be decreed. In light of the

Defendants submitted their complaint 229 days same, the suit was decreed against the Defendants

after service of summons. In spite of having been and a decree of permanent injunction restraining

served the summons in September 2015, the the Defendants from making, selling, distributing,

Defendants appeared for the first time before the advertising, exporting, offering for sale, and in any

Registrar claiming they had not been served with other manner, directly or indirectly, dealing in any

the complete paper book on 9th February 2016. product that infringes the subject matter of Indian

The Registrar directed the Plaintiff to supply the Patent No. 209251 was passed.

complete paper book within two days and the

Defendant was permitted another four weeks’ The decision can be accessed at:-

time for filing their written statement. However, h t t p : / / d e l h i h i g h c o u r t . n i c . i n / d h c q r y d i s p _ o .

the Defendant did not file their written statement asp?pn=156023&yr=2016

30 | Patents & Design