This case revolves around a patent infringement dispute in the pharmaceutical industry. The plaintiffs, Centrient Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B.V. and another entity, hold a patent numbered IN 247301. This patent covers a specific process for preparing Amoxicillin Trihydrate, which is a key ingredient used in antibiotics. The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 218/2019) seeking a permanent injunction to stop the defendant, Dalas Biotech Limited, from using or infringing on this patented process. They claimed that the defendant was manufacturing Amoxicillin Trihydrate using a method that violated their patent rights.
The defendant filed a written statement denying the infringement. In paragraph 94 of this statement, they described their manufacturing process for Amoxicillin Trihydrate. However, the plaintiffs argued that this description was vague and full of ambiguities.
The plaintiffs application (I.A. 15057/2019) under Order XI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2016, read with Section 151 CPC.
The main dispute in this application was whether the court should force the defendant to answer the plaintiffs' interrogatories and disclose detailed information about their manufacturing process and regulatory filings.
The defendant opposed, saying the interrogatories were irrelevant to the suit, sought confidential business information, and were just a "fishing expedition" to gather evidence instead of proving the case through trial.
In essence, this was a battle over discovery rights: How much detail must the defendant reveal early in the case to defend against infringement claims, especially when it involves trade secrets and regulatory approvals?
- Burden under Section 104A(1)(b) Patents Act: Plaintiffs must prove infringement first (via product comparison). Their attempt here is to discover the defendant's "exclusive evidence" through fishing—e.g., demanding documents that reveal trade secrets.
- Interrogatories can't replace cross-examination. The "optionality" issues (enzyme, acids, pH) can be tested during trial by questioning the defendant's witnesses on credibility.
The court dismissed the application. It held that directing the defendant to answer the interrogatories would not serve justice, as it amounts to an impermissible roving inquiry. The issues can be resolved at trial through evidence and cross-examination. No merit in the application; it stands dismissed.
This decision emphasizes the limits of discovery in patent suits: Plaintiffs can't use interrogatories to force disclosure of confidential processes without strong proof of relevance, especially when trial mechanisms exist. It protects trade secrets while upholding the burden-shifting under the Patents Act.
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], High Court of Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment