The case of Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company and Ors. Vs. Natco Pharma Limited revolves around a dispute concerning the alleged infringement of the patent for the pharmaceutical compound "Apixaban." The plaintiffs, Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company and its affiliates, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, Natco Pharma Limited, from manufacturing and selling the drug "Apigat," which they claimed infringed their patent. The defendant argued that Apixaban was disclosed in an earlier patent and was thus in the public domain. The legal dispute primarily involved the interpretation of patent claims, the applicability of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, regarding the stay of suits, and the alleged forum shopping by the plaintiffs.

Detailed Factual Background:
The plaintiffs are multinational pharmaceutical companies engaged in the research, development, and commercialization of innovative medicines. Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company held Indian Patent No. IN247381 (referred to as the "junior patent"), which covered Apixaban, an anticoagulant drug used to prevent and treat blood clots. The patent was granted on April 4, 2011, and was set to expire on September 17, 2022.

The plaintiffs had previously obtained another patent, Indian Patent No. IN243917 (referred to as the "senior patent"), granted on November 11, 2010, covering a broader class of compounds, including nitrogen-containing heterobi cycles used as Factor Xa inhibitors. Although Apixaban was not explicitly mentioned in the senior patent, the plaintiffs asserted that it was generically covered within the patent's scope.

Natco Pharma, an Indian pharmaceutical company, sought to manufacture and market Apixaban under the brand name "Apigat." Natco argued that Apixaban was disclosed in the senior patent and, therefore, was in the public domain, making its production lawful. To preempt potential infringement claims from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Natco filed a declaratory suit in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking a declaration that Apixaban was not exclusively protected under the junior patent. The Hyderabad court issued summons to Bristol-Myers Squibb, and soon after, the plaintiffs filed a fresh infringement suit in the Delhi High Court, seeking to enjoin Natco from selling Apigat.

Detailed Procedural Background:
The suit was filed by Bristol-Myers Squibb before the Delhi High Court on July 4, 2019, and came up for hearing on July 5, 2019. The defendant, appearing on caveat, contested the suit and filed an application under Section 10 of the CPC, seeking a stay on the proceedings in Delhi on the ground that a previously instituted suit concerning the same subject matter was pending in Hyderabad.The defendant’s application under Section 10 of CPC and the preliminary issue of whether the suit in Delhi should be stayed were framed for adjudication. 

Issues Involved in the Case:
Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs in the Delhi High Court should be stayed under Section 10 of CPC in light of the earlier suit filed by the defendant in Hyderabad? Whether the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs and the issues raised in the two suits were substantially the same?

Detailed Submission of Parties:
The plaintiffs argued that the relief sought in the Delhi suit—an injunction against the defendant for patent infringement—was distinct from the declaratory relief sought by the defendant in the Hyderabad suit. They contended that the Hyderabad suit was a defensive strategy by the defendant to preemptively challenge their rights and avoid liability for infringement. The plaintiffs further asserted that their junior patent was valid and enforceable, and that the defendant’s sale of Apigat constituted direct infringement.

The defendant contended that the plaintiffs were engaging in forum shopping by filing the suit in Delhi after being served with summons in Hyderabad. The defendant emphasized that the senior patent already disclosed Apixaban, making it available to the public, and therefore, its manufacture and sale were lawful. Natco also argued that under Section 10 of CPC, the Delhi suit should be stayed because the Hyderabad suit involved a directly and substantially similar issue concerning the scope of the senior patent and the public domain status of Apixaban.

Detailed Discussion on Judgments Cited by Parties:
The plaintiffs relied on Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs. TVS Motor Company Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC 797, where the Supreme Court held that an earlier suit must be between the same parties and involve the same issues for Section 10 of CPC to apply. They also cited Novartis AG vs. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 1, to support the principle that patent claims must be examined based on their explicit disclosures rather than broad interpretations.

The defendant relied on Chitivalasa Jute Mills vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement, (2004) 3 SCC 85, arguing that when two suits involve substantially similar issues, the later suit must be stayed under Section 10 of CPC. They also cited Satyam Infoway Ltd. vs. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 145, to argue that public domain claims should be interpreted in favor of the party seeking to use the subject matter freely.

Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:
The court held that the suit in Delhi was not liable to be stayed under Section 10 of CPC because the reliefs sought in the two suits were different. The court found that while the Hyderabad suit sought a declaration regarding the public domain status of Apixaban, the Delhi suit sought an injunction based on patent infringement. The court also rejected the forum shopping argument, stating that the plaintiffs were within their rights to file an infringement suit where they believed their rights were being violated.

The court further ruled that the determination of whether Apixaban was in the public domain required a detailed examination of both the senior and junior patents, which could not be summarily resolved under Section 10 CPC. The court noted that the plaintiffs had explicitly reserved their right to sue for infringement based on the junior patent, and the defendant’s actions warranted a full trial on the issue of infringement.

Final Decision:
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant’s application under Section 10 of CPC and allowed the infringement suit to proceed. The court held that the Hyderabad suit did not bar the Delhi suit, as the reliefs sought were distinct. The matter was directed for further proceedings on the question of infringement.

Law Settled in This Case:
Section 10 of CPC does not apply where the reliefs sought in two suits are distinct, even if they relate to the same subject matter. Forum shopping allegations must be supported by evidence showing a deliberate attempt to manipulate jurisdictional advantages. A suit for patent infringement can proceed separately from a declaratory suit concerning the public domain status of the subject matter.

Case Title: Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Vs. Natco Pharma Limited 
Date of Order: January 23, 2020 
Case No.: CS(COMM) 342/2019 
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi 
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

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.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539