Delhi High Court Grants Natco Pharma Leave To Submit Additional Written Statement In Ongoing Patent Dispute

Delhi High Court Grants Natco Pharma Leave to Submit Additional Written Statement in Ongoing Patent Dispute

Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court has granted pharmaceutical company Natco Pharma Limited permission to file an additional written statement in an ongoing patent infringement lawsuit brought by Novartis AG. The case involves Indian Patent No. 276026 (IN'026), which pertains to Ceritinib, a treatment for non-small cell lung cancer. Novartis is seeking a permanent injunction to prevent infringement, along with damages and the delivery of infringing products. Novartis has accused Natco Pharma of violating the patent.

Natco Pharma has contested the allegations, arguing that facts related to a divisional application (Patent No. 5338/DELNP/2014), which Novartis had filed earlier, should be considered in the case. In December 2022, the Controller of Patents rejected the divisional application after Novartis chose not to pursue it. Natco contends that the refusal of the divisional application is a crucial fact that should be considered in the ongoing litigation. Natco's counsel argued that the failure to disclose the refusal of the divisional application and other related developments was critical for a fair trial. They claimed that Novartis had not disclosed these material facts in the case. On the other hand, Novartis argued that the divisional application was irrelevant to the current case, maintaining that its refusal was merely procedural and did not affect the validity of the patent.

The court ruled in favor of Natco Pharma, granting the company permission to file an additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows such filings with the court's approval. Justice Pushkarna emphasized the court's discretion to permit these filings in light of developments relevant to the case. The court noted that Novartis's failure to disclose the fate of the divisional application was significantand could impact the fairness of the proceedings. However, she clarified that the interim orders previously upholding the validity of the patent were not final rulings.