Injunction against Cipla COPD Drug ‘INDAFLO’ Upheld: Delhi High Court
Reportedly, on an appeal filed by Cipla pertaining to COPD drug INDAFLO, the Delhi High court division bench maintained the interim injunction imposed by a single judge against Cipla. As per the order, Cipla has now been restrained from, inter alia, using, manufacturing, importing, selling any pharmaceutical products, etc. containing ‘INDACATEROL‘ or ‘INDACATEROL Maleate‘, alone or in combination with any other compound or Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) leading to the infringement of Novartis patent over INDACATEROL.
INDACATEROL is a bronchodilator and used in the treatment of patients suffering from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The drug has been protected and patented by Novartis under Patent no. 222346 and Novartis markets the drug in India through Lupin under the trade name “ONBREZ”. However, Cipla had launched a generic version of the drug with the trade name ‘UNIBREZ’ to which Novartis filed a trademark infringement suit and Cipla agreed to change the trade name to ‘INDAFLO’. Further, Novartis moved to Delhi High Court to seek a permanent injunction against the manufacturing and selling of INDAFLO and thereby stopping Cipla to infringe its patent over this drug. Hon’ble Single Judge Justice Manmohan Singh passed an order for an interim injunction against Cipla until the decision on the application for compulsory license to manufacture and sell INDAFLO is decided by the respective authority.
Being aggrieved by the order of the Learned Single Judge, Cipla filed an appeal challenging the interim injunction.
Arguments and Observations:
Cipla contended and relied on Section 48 (Rights of the Patentees) of the Patent Act 1970, referring to the wordings as mentioned in Section 48 “subject to other provisions in the Act” to be viewed in the light of Section 83 (dealing with General Principles applicable to working of patented inventions) of this Act.
Taking Sections 48 and 83 of the Patents Act, Cipla argued that since Novartis does not manufacture the drug in India and therefore Novartis does not comply with the principles under Section 83. The court rejected this argument stating that Section 83 has no relevance as far as the Rights of Patentees as mentioned under Section 48 is concerned.
As per the bench of two judges, Section 83 begins with the words ‘without prejudice to the other provisions contained in this Act’ meaning that Section 83 is without prejudice to any sections in this Act which includes Section 48 as well and further it has been stated that Section 83 belongs to the different chapter of the Act and therefore this does not have an effect on the rights awarded to the patentee under Section 48 of this Act.
Cipla has further argued that since Novartis does not practice the patent in India as it imports the drug in limited quantities and market through Lupin, Cipla should not be restricted to manufacture and sell its generic version. Taking the 2002 case Telemecanique in light, the bench of the two judges rejected Cipla’s claim, stating that the working of the patent need not compulsorily imply to the only manufacture in India, however, the patent can be exercised by even importing the products. However, the court at this stage concluded that on the basis of data submitted by Novartis, sufficient quantities are imported in India since other drugs for treating COPD are also available in the market and also INDACATEROL does not fall in the category of Life Saving Drug.
Cipla further argued on the grounds of “public interest” that Novartis is not importing the sufficient quantity of the drug and also the drug marketed by Novartis is approx. 5 times as expensive as compared to Cipla’s generic version. Cipla argued that pubic interest would not be served in case the injunction is allowed to remain and contended that while granting an injunction “public interest” has to be considered as one of the four aspects (in addition to prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable harm and injury). To which, the court rejected this plea stating that “public interest” is only one of the four factors to be considered while granting an injunction. Further, the bench brought it to the notice that Cipla in this case till now has not even proved that the grant of an injunction against Cipla would really harm the public interest. Whereas Novartis has duly established the validity of the patent, and the revocation of the interim injunction, in this case, would cause irreparable injury to Novartis under their rights as Patentees as mentioned under section 48 of Indian Patent Act.
Therefore, the bench maintained the interim injunction passed by Hon’ble Judge Manmohan Singh’s judgment and refused to interfere with the impugned judgment proving to be a disappointment for Cipla in the respiratory drugs market.
About the Author: Ankur Gupta, Lead Operations-Hyderabad, IIPRD and can be reached at email@example.com