Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh ... vs Mr Abhijeet And Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 8836 Del

$~36
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CS(OS) 3395/2015
       BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH & ANR           ..... Plaintiffs
                       Through : Ms. Achana Shankar with
                       Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocates

                       versus

       MR ABHIJEET AND ANR                         ..... Defendants
                      Through : Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Sr. Advocate
                      with Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate
                      Mr. Ayush Sharma, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                     ORDER

% 27.11.2015

1. The present suit was listed for admission on 26.11.2015.

Though there was no caveat filed in the suit, Ms. Pratibha M. Singh,

Senior Advocate had entered appearance along with Mr. Aushutosh

Kumar, the briefing counsel and stated that they had appeared on

seeing the case listed in the cause list. A request for adjournment was

made by learned counsel for the defendant to obtain instructions from

the defendants as to whether they are proposing to commercially

launch the product "RIVAROXABAN", subject matter of the patent IN

211300 and the case was adjourned for today.

2. Today, Ms. Singh, learned Senior Advocate states,

on instructions from her briefing counsel, that despite efforts made to

contact the defendants, no instructions have been conveyed.

3. At this stage, Mr. Ayush Sharma, Advocate enters appearance

for the defendants and states that he has received instructions from

Ms. Poonam Raghuvanshi, IPR Head of the defendant No.2/company

to the effect that the defendants are not proposing to commercially

launch the product "RIVAROXABAN" or any other product during the

lifetime of the patent IN 211300, in the name of the plaintiffs.

4. He clarifies that the defendant No.2/company has neither

approached the Drug Controller of India or the Drug Controller of any

other state in the country for commercially launching/marketing the

product, "RIVAROXABAN". He however clarifies that this statement is

without prejudice to the defendant's objection that the present suit is

not maintainable in Delhi on the ground that this Court is not vested

with the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same.

5. In view of the aforesaid submission, nothing further survives for

adjudication in the present suit. By way of an abundant caution, it is

deemed appropriate to direct the defendant No.2/company to file an

affidavit on the aforesaid lines within one week, with an advance copy

to the other side. If the affidavit is not filed within the prescribed

timeline, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to approach the Court for

appropriate orders.

6. The present suit is disposed of, along with the pending

application.

HIMA KOHLI, J NOVEMBER 27, 2015 sk/ap