Background:
In the subject matter suit, the plaintiff, a patent holder in the biologic field, initiated a quia timet action against the defendant, alleging an imminent threat of patent infringement. Despite the defendant's application for approval for clinical trials of their biologic product, the product had not yet been launched in the market. Consequently, the plaintiff faced challenges in mapping their patent claims to the defendant's impugned product, as the specifics of the defendant's manufacturing process were unknown.

Quia Timet Action:
A quia timet action, derived from the Latin phrase meaning "because he fears," is a legal remedy sought by a plaintiff to prevent an anticipated harm or infringement before it occurs. In patent law, quia timet actions are commonly employed when a patent holder has reasonable grounds to believe that their patent rights will be violated in the future, even if infringement has not yet taken place. Such actions serve as a proactive measure to protect intellectual property rights and prevent potential damages.

Invoking Section 104A of the Patents Act, 1970:
Section 104A of the Patents Act, 1970, empowers the court to direct the defendant to furnish information related to the process used for the manufacture of a patented product. This provision is particularly relevant in cases where the plaintiff lacks sufficient information about the defendant's product or process but seeks to assess the potential infringement of their patent rights. By invoking Section 104A, the court can compel the defendant to disclose crucial details about their manufacturing process, enabling the plaintiff to evaluate the extent of infringement and seek appropriate legal remedies.

Significance of the Court's Decision:
In the case before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the court's decision to invoke Section 104A to direct the defendant to disclose their process holds significant implications for both patent holders and potential infringers in the biologic field. By mandating the disclosure of the defendant's manufacturing process, the court has facilitated transparency and fairness in adjudicating patent disputes.

Case Title: F-Hoffmann -La Roche AG Vs Zydus Life Sciences Limited
Order Date: 23.02.2024
Case No. CS Comm 159 of 2024
Neutral Citation:N.A.
Name of Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sanjeev Narula, H.J.

Disclaimer:
Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539