Jubilant Wins Relief: Allahabad HC Bars Pharma Firms from Using Its Drug Dossier

Jubilant Generics Ltd., a subsidiary of Jubilant Life Sciences Ltd., had developed detailed Product Dossiers containing sensitive scientific, regulatory, and technical information required for drug approvals and manufacturing. These dossiers were licensed to Jamp Pharma Corporation, Canada, under a non-exclusive License Supply and Distribution Agreement, permitting their use solely within the Canadian territory for manufacturing and marketing certain pharmaceutical products.

However, following arbitration proceedings between Jubilant and Jamp Pharma in 2024, it came to light through an affidavit filed by Jamp Pharma’s senior vice president that the Canadian company had transferred the proprietary technology contained in the Product Dossiers to its Indian subsidiary, VS International, which in turn facilitated their use by Jamp India for manufacturing and selling the products in India. Jubilant filed a Commercial Suit at Gautam Budh Nagar alleging copyright infringement and breach of confidentiality, leading to an ex parte injunction in its favour.

The appellants argued that they operated under a perpetual, royalty-free licence, that the matter was contractual and already under arbitration in Canada, and that the Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction and erred in dispensing with pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Jubilant countered that the Product Dossiers were original literary works under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the license to Jamp Pharma was confined to Canada without any right of sub-licensing or transfer to India. It contended that the defendants’ acts constituted unauthorized exploitation and infringement, a right in rem that is non-arbitrable.

Upholding Jubilant’s position, the High Court found that the Product Dossiers were indeed protectable literary works and that their use in India constituted clear infringement. It further ruled that the Commercial Court at Gautam Budh Nagar had proper territorial jurisdiction since part of the cause of action arose there, including Jamp India’s product promotion at iPHEX 2024 in Greater Noida.

The Court noted that the agreements expressly confined the licence to Canada, rejecting the appellants’ “perpetual licence” argument as inconsistent and unfounded.

Citing precedents such as Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. (2011) and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn. (2021), the Bench reiterated that copyright disputes are non-arbitrable since they concern rights in rem, and the arbitration in Canada did not preclude Indian proceedings.

It also held that the Commercial Court rightly dispensed with pre-institution mediation considering the urgency of intellectual property rights enforcement.

Concluding, the SCC reported, the High Court dismissed both appeals, affirming that the Product Dossiers are original literary works protected under the Copyright Act, that the defendants’ actions amounted to infringement, that the injunction was properly granted, and that the Commercial Court acted within jurisdiction. The Bench emphasized that the balance of convenience and irreparable harm lay in Jubilant’s favour, as its proprietary data had been wrongfully exploited in India.