Incyte Holdings Corporation v Melody Healthcare Private Limited (2026)

Summary

“The case set out in the plaint is that the plaintiff no.1 has registered patent no.269841 (hereinafter, ‘suit patent IN'841’) which protects the novel and inventive compound Ruxolitinib, used in treatment of myelofibrosis” and “The suit patent IN'841 is valid and subsisting and will expire on 12.12.2026.” (para 23) The plaintiffs stated “that the defendant is presently infringing the suit patent IN'841 by advertising, listing, and offering for sale or supply Ruxolitinib/Ruxolitinib Phosphate Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) on a third-party interactive commercial platform and accepting business enquiries for the same, which constitutes an ‘offer for sale’ within the meaning of Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.” (para 25) The investigation report “confirms that the defendant company has obtained a manufacturing licence for Ruxolitinib/Ruxolitinib Phosphate API from the Food Drug Control Administration, Maharashtra” (para 29) and “that the defendant has developed a generic version of Ruxolitinib/Ruxolitinib Phosphate API in-house and intends to commence commercial manufacturing/stockpiling” (para 30), while “till date, no pharmaceutical drug products containing the patented compound Ruxolitinib have been manufactured/launched by the defendant” (para 28).

The Court held that “the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction” (para 33), that “The balance of convenience is also in favour of an ex parte ad interim injunction being passed since they have a valid and subsisting patent, the term of which has not yet expired whereas the defendants are yet to commercially launch their product” (para 34), and that “the plaintiffs will suffer an irreparable loss and injury if interim relief is not granted till the next date of hearing” (para 35). “Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the defendant, by itself ... are restrained from using, manufacturing, stockpiling (either through itself or through third parties), importing, selling, offering for sale/supply, exporting, directly or indirectly dealing in pharmaceutical drug products with formulation containing Ruxolitinib alone or Ruxolitinib in combination with any other compound or in any other form either by export or to the domestic market, in a manner that amounts to infringement of Indian Patent No. 269841.” (para 36)

What the court decided

1. The pleaded offer for sale. “It is stated that the defendant is presently infringing the suit patent IN'841 by advertising, listing, and offering for sale or supply Ruxolitinib/Ruxolitinib Phosphate Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) on a third-party interactive commercial platform and accepting business enquiries for the same, which constitutes an ‘offer for sale’ within the meaning of Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.” The plaintiffs found that “the defendant has listed ‘Ruxolitinib Phosphate’ as one of its products under the therapeutic category of ‘Atopic Dermatitis’ in its commercial API” (“Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient”) “Product List” and that “the defendant has also been listed as a supplier for Ruxolitinib/ Ruxolitinib Phosphate API on a third-party interactive commercial platform”. (paras 25–27)
2. Prima facie case. “In the light of the submissions made by Mr. Singh and after perusing the documents on record, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction.” (para 33)
3. Balance of convenience. “The balance of convenience is also in favour of an ex parte ad interim injunction being passed since they have a valid and subsisting patent, the term of which has not yet expired whereas the defendants are yet to commercially launch their product.” (para 34)
4. Irreparable loss. “I am satisfied that the plaintiffs will suffer an irreparable loss and injury if interim relief is not granted till the next date of hearing.” (para 35)
5. The scope of the restraint. The defendant, “by itself or through its directors, group companies or sister concerns, associates, divisions, assigns in business, licensees, franchisees, agents, distributors and dealers are restrained from using, manufacturing, stockpiling (either through itself or through third parties), importing, selling, offering for sale/supply, exporting, directly or indirectly dealing in pharmaceutical drug products with formulation containing Ruxolitinib alone or Ruxolitinib in combination with any other compound or in any other form either by export or to the domestic market, in a manner that amounts to infringement of Indian Patent No. 269841.” (para 36)
6. Procedure. Order XXXIX Rule 3. “Provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be complied with qua the defendants within a period of two weeks from today and affidavit of compliance be filed within a period of three days thereafter.” (para 37)
7. Procedure. Pre-litigation mediation. On the application “seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation”, the Court held: “Since an urgent relief has been contemplated in the present matter, the present application is allowed.” (paras 3–4)

Subsequent treatment

No later judicial treatment and no further appeal traced as of 5 October 2026.