Commercial Court, Gautam Budh Nagar: A suit was filed by Jubilant Generics Ltd. (plaintiff) and four defendant companies alleging copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, and unauthorized use of confidential product dossiers developed by the plaintiff. Kunal Vepa, J., restrained the defendants from reproducing or using in any manner the copyrights protected product dossiers of the plaintiff in relation to the said products, and for manufacturing, distributing and exporting the said products to any entity and also from sharing with any third party, or using directly or indirectly the plaintiff confidential information including the product dossiers in whole or in part for the said products.
The plaintiff is a pharmaceutical company that developed proprietary product dossiers for three drugs—Losartan, Amlodipine, and Citalopram. These dossiers were licensed to Jamp Pharma Corporation, a Canadian company, through a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement dated 13-05-2010, and separate non-exclusive license, supply, and distribution agreements. Under these agreements, Jamp Pharma acquired a fully paid-up, perpetual, royalty-free license to use the product dossiers for manufacturing, distributing, and selling the products in Canada.
The plaintiff alleged that Jamp Pharma breached the agreement by sharing the product dossiers with the defendants i.e., Indian pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the said products for Jamp Pharma. Since these defendants were not parties to the original agreements, the plaintiff contended that their use of the product dossiers constituted copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets. The plaintiff also pointed out that arbitration proceedings were already pending in Canada between itself and Jamp Pharma, but the defendants were not parties to that arbitration. As a result, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking an injunction against the defendants.
Upon filing the suit, the plaintiff obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction on 23-08-2024, restraining the defendants from using the product dossiers, manufacturing, distributing, or exporting the products. The defendants subsequently challenged this order and sought its vacation.
The plaintiff argued that the product dossiers constituted literary works protected under the Copyright Act, 1957, and their unauthorized use by third parties amounted to copyright infringement. The licensing agreements restricted Jamp Pharma’s right to sub-license the dossiers to entities outside Canada, and the defendants’ use of the dossiers was therefore unauthorized. The defendants’ actions were causing irreparable harm, as they were manufacturing the products in India based on the plaintiff’s intellectual property, which could lead to the information entering the public domain. The arbitration proceedings in Canada only involved Jamp Pharma and did not cover the defendants, necessitating a separate suit against them in India.
The defendants contended that Jamp Pharma had lawfully obtained a perpetual, royalty-free license for the product dossiers and had the right to use, improve, modify, and reproduce them, including outsourcing manufacturing to third parties. The licensing agreements did not prohibit Jamp Pharma from getting the products manufactured outside Canada as long as they were sold only in Canada. The plaintiff had been aware of the defendants’ manufacturing activities since 2021 and had delayed filing the suit, which indicated forum shopping. The dispute was essentially contractual and governed by Canadian law, making the Indian court’s jurisdiction questionable. The products were not being sold in India, and any alleged harm to the plaintiff was compensable through damages.
The Court examined the three essential requirements for granting a temporary injunction, prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.
On the aspect of prima facie case, the Court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of copyright infringement. The defendants were not parties to the licensing agreements, and their unauthorized use of the product dossiers raised serious legal concerns. The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff’s delay in filing the suit indicated waiver or acquiescence. The first cause of action arose on 02-01-2024, when a witness in the Canadian arbitration disclosed that Jamp Pharma had transferred technology to the defendants.
On the aspect of balance of convenience, the Court found that the balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants had access to the plaintiff’s intellectual property despite not being part of the licensing agreements and allowing them to continue manufacturing would violate the plaintiff’s statutory rights. The Court also noted that the defendants’ commercial interests could not override the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights.
On the aspect of irreparable harm, the Court ruled that the unauthorized use of the product dossiers could cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff. If the information entered the public domain, it would be impossible to recover the plaintiff’s intellectual property. Since the defendants were not authorized licensees, their continued use of the dossiers could result in substantial losses for the plaintiff that could not be adequately compensated through damages.
Thus, the Court granted temporary injunction against the defendants and restrained them from using, reproducing, or distributing the product dossiers of the plaintiff, manufacturing, distributing, or exporting the products in question and sharing or utilizing the plaintiff’s confidential information for any commercial purpose.
[Jubilant Generics Ltd v. Medreich Limited, Original Suit No.370 /2024, decided on 25-02-2025]
