Earlier this week, it was reported in the Economic Times that the Delhi High Court has refused US pharma major Bristol-Myers Squibb’s application for an ex-parte injunction order against Ranbaxy for launching a generic version of Squibb’s hepatitis B drug, Baraclude. However, the application for interim injunction is yet to be heard.
The Court has given Ranbaxy a period of 2 weeks to file its reply after which arguments on the interim application would be taken up. The drug Entecavir reportedly has global sales to the tune of $ 191 million.The Court observed that Squibb’s patented molecule appeared to be a pre-1995 one.
Apart from Ranbaxy, Natco and Cipla too seem to have plans in the pipeline for launching generic versions of Baraclude.
This matter promises to be an interesting one, watch out this space for more updates.
how can a court refuse an ‘application for ex parte interim injunction’ and still grant time for arguments on interim application?
Court did not grant an ex parte injunction BUT the interim injunction application is listed for arguments and is yet to be decided.
Hi Anon,
Is there a difference between “did not grant an ex parte” and refuse an “ex parte”? Please enlighten us…
Bests,
Sai.
Folks,
I tried to check the Orange Book and there is only 1 listed patent for Entecavir.
This clearly is a pre-95 patent.
Any idea on which Indian patent is in question?
I searched the Indian site + Big Patents but did NOT get any thing that could match the patent for Entecavir.
Please enlighten.
Regards,
Freq. Anon.
Application is the key word..
usually the term “ex parte interim injunction” is used when an application for injunction is heard in the absence of the Defendant since the Defendant is not on prior notice. So the defendant does not appear before court and the Court decides on interim injunction based on the Plaintiff’s case alone at the first instance itself.
If the Defendant appears or is on notice (like on caveat) and the Defendant is represented..its not an ex parte order.
So in those cases an ex parte interim injunction is not issued, obviously since the Defendants are represented. BUT this is not the same as refusal of interim injunction application.
What was not granted is an ex parte injunction. Why? coz the Defendant appeared and accepted notice and will file their reply in two weeks and on the next date the interim injunction application will be argued.
The reason i am poiting this out is…its a law blog..
Wiki: Ex parte is a Latin legal term meaning “from (by or for) one party” (pronounced /ɛks ˈpɑrteɪ/ or /ɛks ˈpɑrti/ in English). An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the controversy to be present. In Australian, Canadian, U.K., Indian and U.S. legal doctrines, ex parte means a legal proceeding brought by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties.
THE COURT DECIDED TO HEAR THE INTERIM APPLICATION AFTER REPLIES.AS THE STAND OF PARTIES ARE CLEAR ON RECORD.DO NOT MISLEAD READERS,ACTUALLY THE QUESTION OF INTERIM INJUNCTION IS OPEN.BEST
KIND REGARDS
DEVASEKHAR