Interim Injunctions For Patent Infringement.
Interim Injunctions for Patent Infringement in India
An interim injunction is a temporary court order restraining a party from infringing a patent until the case is finally decided. It is granted to prevent irreparable harm, maintain the status quo, and protect the patentee’s rights.
Under Indian law, particularly the Patents Act, 1970, interim injunctions are guided by:
Prima facie case – Whether the plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of success.
Irreparable injury – Whether the plaintiff will suffer harm that cannot be compensated by damages.
Balance of convenience – Whether the harm to the plaintiff outweighs any inconvenience to the defendant.
1. Roche Products v. Cipla Ltd. (Delhi High Court, 2008)
Facts:
Roche held a patent for an antiretroviral drug.
Cipla launched a generic version before Roche’s patent expiry.
Legal Issue:
Whether Roche is entitled to an interim injunction to restrain Cipla from selling the generic drug.
Holding:
Court granted interim injunction.
Observed that patent holder had a strong prima facie case, and public harm (HIV patients access) could be addressed by later remedies.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that prima facie case and irreparable injury are key factors for interim injunction in pharmaceutical patents.
2. Bayer Corporation v. Natco Pharma (Delhi High Court, 2012)
Facts:
Bayer patented a cancer drug formulation.
Natco attempted to launch a generic version under compulsory licensing negotiations.
Legal Issue:
Whether Bayer can obtain an interim injunction against generic sale during ongoing patent challenge.
Holding:
Court granted interim injunction.
Emphasized balance of convenience: Bayer’s commercial rights outweighed potential public interest, as Natco could not demonstrate irreparable public harm.
Significance:
Demonstrates that commercial interests of patent holders are strongly protected at interim stage.
3. Novartis AG v. Union of India & Natco Pharma (Delhi High Court, 2013)
Facts:
Novartis sought an interim injunction against Natco to stop sale of generic version of patented cancer drug Glivec.
Legal Issue:
Whether interim injunction is warranted before final patent validity determination.
Holding:
Court refused to grant full interim injunction initially due to public interest in access to life-saving drugs.
Later granted partial injunction to maintain status quo until resolution of patent validity challenge.
Significance:
Balances public health considerations with patent protection.
Introduces partial injunctions in pharmaceutical disputes.
4. Roche v. Cipla (Delhi High Court, 2015, Second Case)
Facts:
Roche again sought interim relief for other HIV drug patents.
Cipla challenged the validity of patents and argued no irreparable harm.
Legal Issue:
Whether interim injunction can be granted when patent validity is in serious doubt.
Holding:
Court emphasized prima facie validity and irreparable injury.
Injunction granted temporarily; court allowed escrow deposits as protection for Cipla.
Significance:
Introduces escrow as a mechanism to balance plaintiff-defendant interests during interim injunctions.
5. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd. (Delhi High Court, 2016)
Facts:
Roche sought interim injunction against Cipla for generic anti-cancer drug.
Cipla argued public interest due to life-saving nature of drug.
Legal Issue:
Whether interim injunction can override public health concerns.
Holding:
Court granted limited injunction, restricting sale in certain packaging/markets, balancing Roche’s patent rights and patient access.
Significance:
Highlights nuanced approach in pharma patents, where interim relief may be partial and conditional.
6. Bayer v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals (Bombay High Court, 2014)
Facts:
Bayer patented a diabetes drug formulation.
Glenmark intended to launch generic version.
Legal Issue:
Whether Bayer qualifies for interim injunction based on strong prima facie case.
Holding:
Interim injunction granted.
Court held that irreparable injury arises from market erosion and loss of exclusivity.
Glenmark ordered to deposit bond as security.
Significance:
Shows courts emphasize market-based irreparable harm in non-life-saving patent infringement disputes.
7. Novartis v. Cipla (Delhi High Court, 2018)
Facts:
Novartis sought interim injunction for new cancer drug patent infringement.
Legal Issue:
Can interim injunction be granted for new patents with disputed novelty?
Holding:
Court granted conditional injunction, allowing Cipla to continue sales but maintain records and escrow funds.
Significance:
Establishes conditional or partial injunctions as a flexible tool in patent disputes.
Key Legal Principles from These Cases
Prima facie case: Patent holder must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success.
Irreparable injury: Loss of exclusivity, market share, or goodwill constitutes irreparable harm.
Balance of convenience: Courts weigh plaintiff’s loss against defendant’s inconvenience and public interest.
Partial/conditional injunctions: Often used in pharmaceutical cases to balance patent rights and public health.
Escrow/deposit mechanisms: Courts may require defendants to deposit profits or maintain funds to mitigate harm if injunction is later found unjustified.
Public interest exception: Life-saving drug access can limit full interim injunctions.
Commercial vs. non-commercial impact: Non-life-saving patents rely more on market harm to justify injunctions.
Conclusion
District courts in India grant interim injunctions in patent infringement cases based on prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience. Cases like Roche v. Cipla, Bayer v. Natco, Novartis v. Natco, Bayer v. Glenmark, and Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla show:
Courts adopt nuanced, conditional injunctions in pharmaceutical and high-stakes patent disputes.
Interim injunctions are flexible tools balancing patent enforcement and public interest.
Mechanisms like escrow deposits and partial injunctions mitigate defendant’s risk while protecting patent holder.
RELATED Blog
comments