Introduction:This case concerns an intellectual property dispute in the pharmaceutical sector. The appeal, filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, challenges the ad interim injunction imposed by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on Natco Pharma Limited. The injunction restrains Natco from manufacturing or selling Olaparib under the brand name BRACANAT or any other brand until the final disposal of the suit.

Factual Background of Proceedings:Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited and other respondents filed a suit (CS (COMM) 29/2023) seeking to restrain Natco Pharma from manufacturing and selling Olaparib, alleging infringement of its patent rights. The Single Judge granted an ad interim injunction on 01.03.2024 in favor of Kudos Pharmaceuticals. Natco Pharma Limited challenged this order before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court via FAO(OS) (COMM) 43/2024.

During the pendency of the appeal, the patent for Olaparib expired: The Supreme Court, in SLP (C) 16237/2024 (Novartis AG & Anr. vs. Natco Pharma Limited), had held that once a patent expires, an injunction based on patent rights ceases to have practical relevance. Similarly, in another case, Indoco Remedies Ltd. v. Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors., the Delhi High Court Division Bench had also observed that an injunction loses relevance post-expiry of the patent. Given these precedents, Natco Pharma argued that the injunction should be vacated.

Arguments of the Appellant (Natco Pharma Limited):Patent Expiry: The appellant contended that since the patent had expired, the injunction was meaningless and should be vacated. Potential Prejudice: Natco argued that the injunction, if not set aside, could be misused in future litigations or create confusion in ongoing commercial dealings. Supreme Court's Precedents: The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Novartis AG & Anr. vs. Natco Pharma Limited, asserting that the Division Bench should not entertain the appeal since the patent had expired.No Continuing Infringement: Natco argued that patent-based injunctions serve no purpose once the patent term ends, as exclusivity ceases to exist.

Arguments of the Respondents (Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Others):Single Judge’s Order Valid at the Time of Issuance: The respondents maintained that the order was passed when the patent was still in force, making the injunction valid at that time. Relevance of Injunction in Trial Proceedings: Kudos Pharmaceuticals contended that the injunction order might influence future proceedings and should not be dismissed outright. Reliance on Precedents: The respondents referenced the Single Judge’s reasoning and attempted to distinguish their case from past judgments where injunctions had been lifted after patent expiration.

Discussion on Judgments & Cited Cases: Supreme Court’s Order dated 02.08.2024, passed  in SLP (C) 16237/2024 titled Novartis AG & Anr. vs. Natco Pharma Limited, and the Order dated 15.10.2024, passed in the Review Petition (Civil) (D No. 43943/2024): The Supreme Court ruled that once a patent expires, an injunction based on patent rights ceases to have any practical significance. The Court criticized lower courts for continuing to entertain disputes over expired patents. This case was directly applicable to Natco Pharma’s appeal, reinforcing the appellant’s argument.Delhi High Court’s Division Bench Order dated 06.10.2022, passed in FAO(OS) (COMM) 3/2020, titled Indoco Remedies Ltd. v. Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors, The Division Bench held that injunctions should not extend beyond the life of a patent.The case clarified that post-expiry commercial rights return to the public domain, rendering injunctions meaningless.These two key precedents strongly supported Natco Pharma's position and influenced the Division Bench’s decision.

Reasoning of the Division Bench: Reaffirming Supreme Court's Position: The Bench agreed with the Supreme Court’s observation that a patent’s expiry renders injunctions meaningless. Ensuring No Prejudice in Trial Proceedings: To address Natco’s concerns, the Bench clarified that the Single Judge’s order would not be treated as binding in the trial stage. Avoiding Unnecessary Litigation: The Bench emphasized that no further time should be spent litigating expired patents, dismissing the appeal while leaving legal questions open for trial.

Decision of the Court:The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal in favor of Natco Pharma Limited.

The Bench did not affirm the Single Judge’s injunction but left the legal questions open for further consideration at trial. It ruled that the injunction should not prejudice Natco in future proceedings or be considered binding in other cases.

Concluding Note:This case is significant for patent litigation in India, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector. It reinforces the principle that injunctions lose relevance once a patent expires. The ruling aligns with global intellectual property norms, where expired patents return products to the public domain, fostering competition and access to medicines.

Date of Order: 31.01.2025

Case No.: FAO(OS) (COMM) 43/2024

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:611-DB

Name of Court: Delhi High Court

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur

High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer:The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.