Frimline Private Limited & Anr. v. K-SMATCO Lifesciences Private Limited & Ors.

Where a defendant’s product prima facie falls within the scope of a subsisting patent, the Court may grant interim protection to prevent continued commercial exploitation pending final adjudication.

SHORT DESCRIPTION ABOUT THE CASE:

This case concerns infringement of Indian Patent No. 382949 titled “A Pharmaceutical Composition for Anaemia” and copyright in the plaintiff’s website. The Delhi High Court considered the patent claims and granted interim protection against commercialization of the allegedly infringing pharmaceutical product.

FACTS:

The plaintiffs were engaged in the manufacture and sale of medicines and health supplements. Plaintiff No. 1 owned Indian Patent No. 382949, while the patent was licensed to Plaintiff No. 2.

The patent related to a pharmaceutical composition for anaemia. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were manufacturing, selling, distributing, advertising or otherwise commercializing FERROTOK PLUS and/or products containing the composition claimed in the suit patent.

The plaintiffs approached the Court seeking an interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in the allegedly infringing products during the subsistence of the patent.

FINDINGS:

The Court examined the pleadings, patent material and submissions and found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for interim protection.

The Court considered the subsistence of the patent and the allegations concerning the defendants’ product. It also considered the balance of convenience and the possibility of further commercial harm if the alleged infringement continued during the pendency of the suit.

Accordingly, the defendants and persons acting on their behalf were restrained from making, using, selling, distributing, advertising, offering for sale, exporting, importing or otherwise commercializing products or processes infringing Indian Patent No. 382949.

The Court also dealt with preservation and inspection of evidence through the procedural applications filed by the plaintiffs.

SUGGESTION:

In pharmaceutical patent disputes, the patent specification and claims should be carefully compared with the composition of the defendant’s product. Evidence concerning formulation, product literature, manufacturing details, packaging and sales should be preserved.

Where there is an immediate threat of commercial launch or continued sale, an interim injunction application should clearly establish the subsistence of the patent, prima facie infringement, balance of convenience and potential irreparable injury.

JUDGMENT / PRINCIPLE:

The case demonstrates that where the patentee establishes a prima facie case of infringement of a subsisting pharmaceutical patent and continued commercialization may cause further harm, the Court may grant interim injunction protection pending final adjudication.