Short Summary
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma for infringing Indian Patent No.IN247381 (APIXABAN). The defendant sought a stay under Section 10 CPC, citing a previously instituted suit in the City Civil Court at Hyderabad concerning patent validity and infringement. The High Court dismissed the stay application.
Detailed Summary
In the high-stakes world of pharmaceutical patents, choosing the right courtroom can be just as important as choosing the right lawyer. When a global innovator and a domestic challenger both race to file suits over the same molecule, the law must decide whose fight gets heard first. This case between Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and Natco Pharma is a masterclass in how Indian courts handle that exact collision.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland, the holder of Indian Patent No. IN247381 covering APIXABAN, found itself in a dispute with Natco Pharma over alleged infringement of that patent. Seeking to protect its intellectual property, Bristol Myers Squibb filed a suit for a permanent injunction against Natco Pharma. However, Natco Pharma had already instituted a separate suit in the City Civil Court at Hyderabad concerning the very same patent, raising questions about both its validity and infringement. This overlap set the stage for a jurisdictional tug-of-war.
Natco Pharma leaned on Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that the previously filed suit in the City Civil Court at Hyderabad should take precedence. The defendant's position was rooted in the principle that once a court has been approached first, subsequent suits involving the same subject matter should be stayed to avoid conflicting decisions. Bristol Myers Squibb, on the other hand, pushed back against the stay application, contending that allowing the City Civil Court to entertain the matter would result in a fragmented and inefficient adjudication of all the disputes between the parties.
The High Court sided with Bristol Myers Squibb and dismissed Natco Pharma's stay application. The court made it clear that Section 10 of the CPC is not a mandatory provision that must be mechanically applied in every case. Where entertaining a particular suit would lead to a composite adjudication of all disputes between the parties, the court has the discretion to disregard the stay request. By refusing to halt its own proceedings, the High Court ensured that the patent dispute could be resolved in a single, coherent forum rather than being splintered across multiple courts.
For founders, startup leaders, and IP professionals, the lesson is strategic and immediate: filing first does not guarantee you control the battlefield. If a competitor tries to use a prior suit to block your infringement action, remember that courts have the power to refuse a stay when doing so would cause piecemeal justice. Build your litigation strategy around the strength of your forum, not just the speed of your filing, and be prepared to argue why a unified adjudication serves the interests of justice better than a procedural technicality.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company vs Natco Pharma is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
The North Face Apparel CorpvsController of Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of its patent application (No. 202147026139) titled 'Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management' before the Madras High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of inventive step over prior art documents D21-D24. The Court held that the Controller erred by dissecting the claims into isolated elements rather than assessing the invention as a whole, and overlooked the use of spectrophotometer and invisible markers for tracking the manufacturing process, which were not disclosed in the cited prior art. The appeal was allowed and the Controller was directed to grant the patent.
Aventose Energy Private LimitedvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Aventose Energy Private Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its patent application (No. 202141019671) for a 'System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain' featuring safe mode activation upon fault detection. The Madras High Court found that the Assistant Controller had contradicted the First Examination Report (which accepted novelty) by subsequently holding the invention lacked novelty without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Controller improperly conflated novelty with inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and failed to properly analyze the claims against prior art documents D1–D4.
Apex Laboratories Pvt LtdvsElder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd, the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT (TM No. 487453 in Class 5) since 1988, sought interim injunction against Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care for using the deceptively similar mark NEO ZINCOVIT. The applicant also claimed copyright infringement of its registered artistic works (A-108878/2014) covering colour scheme, get-up, and layout. The Madras High Court was satisfied that the respondents were attempting to piggyback on the applicant's goodwill and granted interim injunctions on all three applications covering trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Radico Khaitan LimitedvsPicadilly Agro Industries Limited
This Special Leave Petition arose from a judgment dated 29-05-2026 in CS No. 8/2025 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, Haryana, concerning a trademark dispute over the marks 'Cashmere' and 'Kashmyr' used in relation to beer and vodka. The Supreme Court noted that a First Appeal (FAO-COM-11-2026) was already pending before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, listed for 28.10.2026. The Court disposed of the SLP without adjudicating it on merits, requesting the High Court to pass an appropriate order regarding the ad interim injunction on the scheduled date.
Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society (Regd.)vsMaharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University
The plaintiff, Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University, alleging infringement and passing off regarding the use of the words 'Maharaja Agrasen' in the defendant's name. The Delhi High Court had previously granted a restraint order on 10.07.2026. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a settlement dated 14.09.2026, under which the defendant agreed to change its name through a statutory amendment while being permitted limited transitional use of its existing name. The court recorded the settlement, modified the interim order accordingly, and listed the matter for compliance reporting on 13.07.2027.
Varahi Diamonds And Finance LimitedvsSahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited against Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The order is primarily procedural, dealing with the registration of the plaint, issuance of summons, directions for filing pleadings, and an interim injunction application. The matter was referred to mediation, with parties directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.