PHARMACYCLICS LLC & ANR v. LUCIUS PHARMACEUTICALS & ORS

1. Plaintiff 1 is the holder of registered Indian Patent No. 262968 (IN’968) claiming a compound bearing the INN “Ibrutinib”, which is sold by Plaintiff 2, as an exclusive sub-licensee, under the trademark “IMBRUVICA”, through its exclusive licensee, Janssen Biotech Inc.

2. The suit patent IN’ 968 was granted to Plaintiff 1 on 25 September 2014, w.e.f. 28 December 2006 and is therefore alive till 28 December 2026.

3. The plaint alleges that Defendant 1 is manufacturing Ibrutinib under its brand name “LUCIBRU”, as 140 mg Capsules.

4. Consequent to issuance of summons in this case, the only defendant who responded was Defendant 7.

5. Defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 have never entered appearance in this matter and have been proceeded ex parte vide order dated 9 November 2022.

6. Defendant 5 was, however, appearing in these proceedings but has been absent since 9 November 2022 and is not represented today either.

7. Defendant 7 alone has filed a written statement in this matter, in which it was sought to be contended that Defendant 7 was marketing generic drugs manufactured by Defendant 1 and has nothing to do with the drug patented in Plaintiff 1’s name vide IN’ 968.

8. Mr. Pravin Anand, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, submits that this is completely a false assertion and has drawn my attention in this context to Annexure-M of the documents filed with the plaint, which is the following screen shot.

9. Mr. Anand points out, from the aforesaid screenshot, that “LUCIBRU” 140 MG, which is the infringing product manufactured by Defendant 1, was being sold through Defendant 7, which has also set out its credentials on the afore-extracted webpage. As such, Mr. Anand submits that the attempt of Defendant 7 to disassociate itself from the manufacture of the infringing drug by Defendant 1 and the sale thereof is merely an attempt to mislead the court.

10. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs have filed I.A. 10567/2023, under Order XIIIA Rules 3 and 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC), as amended by the Commercial Courts Act 2015, seeking a judgment and decree against Defendant 7 on the ground that no triable case has been made out by the said defendant in the present proceedings.

11. The plaintiffs have also filed I.A. 10568/2023 under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, for pronouncement of judgment against the remaining defendants.

12. Notice was issued on the aforesaid application to the said defendants on 29 May 2023. Despite over three months having passed since then, however, there is no response to the said application by Defendant 5 who is also absent today.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances, I see no reason to keep this matter pending. Barring Defendant 7, none of the remaining defendants have chosen to respond to the suit by way of written statement.

14. Mr. Anuj Soni appears and submits that though his father was representing Defendant 7, after his father’s unfortunate demise during the Covid-2019 Pandemic, he has made attempts to contact Defendant 7, but to no avail.

15. The written statement of Defendant 7 is clearly not acceptable in view of the afore-extracted screenshot, which indicates that Defendant 7 was actually selling, in the market, the infringing product manufactured by Defendant 1.