Pawan Kumar Goel v. Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.

In the high-stakes world of pharmaceutical patents, the line between innovation and infringement is often drawn along the roots, leaves, and bark of a plant. When a patent holder sues for infringement and then tries to quietly walk away, claiming the defendant is using a different species, the court takes a very dim view. This case involving the extraction of Alpha Yohimbine is a masterclass in why you cannot approbate and reprobate — you cannot blow the whistle on infringement and then pretend you never heard it.

Pawan Kumar Goel, the plaintiff, held Indian Patent 369150, which covered a process for extracting Alpha Yohimbine — a compound with significant commercial value in the pharmaceutical and supplement industries. Believing that Dr. Dhan Singh and another party (the defendants) were infringing this patent, Goel filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to stop them. The defendants were allegedly extracting Alpha Yohimbine from plant sources, and Goel claimed this fell squarely within the scope of his patented process. What began as a straightforward infringement action, however, soon took an unexpected turn when the plaintiff himself sought to retreat from the battlefield.

After filing the suit, Pawan Kumar Goel made a surprising move — he sought conditional withdrawal of the case. His argument was straightforward: the defendant was using Rauwolfia Vomitoria, a different plant species than the one covered by his patent, meaning there was no current cause of action to pursue. In essence, Goel was trying to close the book on a fight he had started, claiming the defendant had stepped outside the boundaries of his patent. The defendants, meanwhile, had their own position supported by technical evidence. Crucially, expert analysis pointed in the opposite direction of the plaintiff's claims — the evidence suggested that the defendant was actually using Rauwolfia tetraphylla, not Rauwolfia Vomitoria. This distinction was not trivial; it meant the defendant's process likely fell within the scope of the patented extraction method, undermining the very basis on which Goel sought to withdraw.

The court refused to grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw the suit. The reasoning was rooted in a fundamental legal principle: a party cannot approbate and reprobate. Having initiated an infringement action and presenting evidence that pointed toward actual infringement, the plaintiff could not then turn around and claim no cause of action existed simply because it suited his convenience. The expert report indicating the defendant's use of Rauwolfia tetraphylla — a species tied to the patented process — weighed heavily against the withdrawal request. The court recognized that future infringement remained a real possibility, and allowing the plaintiff to withdraw would leave the defendant in legal limbo while exposing the patent holder's rights to ongoing risk. The outcome effectively favored the defendant's position by keeping the infringement suit alive and preventing the plaintiff from escaping the consequences of his own legal action.

For founders, inventors, and IP professionals, this case delivers a sharp, practical lesson: think twice before pulling the trigger on a patent infringement suit. Once you file, you cannot easily retract your claims — especially when expert evidence already on record suggests infringement is plausible. The doctrine against approbation and reprobation means your initial position will be held against you. Before suing, conduct thorough technical due diligence on what the alleged infringer is actually doing. And if you do sue, be prepared to see it through, because courts will not let you withdraw simply because the legal terrain becomes uncomfortable. In patent litigation, credibility is currency — spend it wisely.