NOVARTIS AG Vs. CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A.16018/2014(delay in filing the reply) & I.A.17037/2014(delay in filing the written statement)

(2.) The Defendant applicant seeks extension of time in filing reply to the injunction application and written statement to the plaint. Admittedly, there is a delay of 45 days in filing the written statement beyond the period of 90 days. On behalf of the Defendant, it is submitted that the matter relates to a patent which covers the Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) compound named 'Vildagliptin'. The sum and substance of the ground taken by the Defendant for extension of time is that the Defendant had applied for certified copies of various patents which were relevant to the present dispute between the parties from the respective patent offices and the same were supplied to the Defendant only recently. It is further the case of the Defendant that the matter being highly technical had to be examined by the experts. Opinions from them were obtained and the requisite material on the subject was also downloaded from internet to file a proper defence. The Defendant had to collect large volumes of data and thus, it delayed the filing of the written statement and the reply to the injunction application.

(3.) The extension of time is strenuously opposed on behalf of the Plaintiffs. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that no cogent reason has been given by the Defendant for condonation of delay. The Plaintiffs have incorporated several dates in their reply to show that the Defendant was repeatedly granted time to file the written statement and reply to the injunction application. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the Defendant's averments that technical team of the Defendant was examining the voluminous data is false and without any basis as the said data has not been placed on record.