Commercial Court, Gautam Budh Nagar: A suit was filed by Jubilant Generics Ltd., (plaintiff) a pharmaceutical company seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the unauthorized use and disclosure of a confidential product dossier related to the manufacturing of certain pharmaceutical products. Avnish Saxena, J., granted injunction, restraining the defendants from further manufacturing, distributing, or using the confidential dossier and related products and directed the defendants to return or destroy all copies of the product dossier in their possession, reaffirming the plaintiff’s right to safeguard its intellectual property against unauthorized use.
The plaintiff had entered into a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement with Jamp Pharmaceuticals Corporation, a Canadian company, under which a product dossier containing confidential chemical formulations and research data for medicines such as Amlodipine, Losartan, and Citalopram was shared. This dossier, the result of extensive research and development by the plaintiff, was provided to Jamp Pharma under a license agreement that strictly limited its use to manufacturing for distribution solely within Canada. The dispute arose when Jubilant discovered that Jamp Pharma’s Indian subsidiary (defendant 4) had allegedly shared this dossier with other defendants in India for the purpose of manufacturing these drugs locally, in direct violation of the confidentiality agreement. The plaintiff claimed this breach could lead to unauthorized use, manufacturing, and distribution of its proprietary formulations within India, potentially harming its business interests, and thus sought legal remedies to prevent further misuse.
The plaintiff sought a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from using or further distributing the product dossier, and also prayed for ex parte interim injunction to stop the defendants from manufacturing, distributing, or exporting the medicines because the product dossier, as a result of continuous research, qualified as a protected work under the Copyright Act, 1957, and any unauthorized use or distribution by the defendants was a violation of intellectual property rights.
In defense, defendant 4 contended that the agreement between the plaintiff and Jamp Pharma was governed by Canadian law and included an arbitration clause specifying arbitration in Canada. The defendants also claimed that the product dossier had not been transferred for use within India, and that the medicines manufactured were solely for export to Canada, not for sale in India. They denied any violation of the confidentiality agreement, asserting that no irreparable harm had been caused to the plaintiff as the manufacturing and export were in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
The Court noted that the product dossier, consisting of chemical formulas and research data, appeared to be a unique creation of the plaintiff, which was protected under copyright law. Thus, the Court found that the plaintiff had made a prima facie case for breach of confidentiality and violation of intellectual property rights.
The Court observed that if the defendants were allowed to continue manufacturing and distributing the products, the plaintiff’s business interests, and intellectual property rights could be severely damaged. The Court also acknowledged the plaintiff’s concern that the continued use and distribution of its product dossier could lead to irreversible financial and reputational damage, particularly if the medicines were distributed in a market beyond Canada. While the defendants argued that no harm had occurred as the products were being exported to Canada, the Court emphasized that the breach of confidentiality, if proven, would result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff.
Thus, the Court granted an injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, distributing, or exporting the disputed medicines until further orders and directed to refrain from any actions that could lead to the further distribution or misuse of the plaintiff’s product dossier.
[Jubilant Generics Ltd. v Medreichs Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (All) 1, decided on 07-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For plaintiff: Vaibhav Mittal and Vashistha Parashar
For defendants: Arjun Krishnan
