{"id":6281,"date":"2025-07-14T05:31:09","date_gmt":"2025-07-14T05:31:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=6281"},"modified":"2025-07-14T05:35:17","modified_gmt":"2025-07-14T05:35:17","slug":"cross-border-evidence-collection-under-the-hague-convention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/cross-border-evidence-collection-under-the-hague-convention\/","title":{"rendered":"Cross-Border Evidence Collection under the Hague Convention"},"content":{"rendered":"<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Summary\"><\/span>Case Summary<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>In an era where global commerce and intellectual property disputes increasingly transcend national boundaries, the interplay between domestic laws and international judicial cooperation becomes a critical arena of legal exploration. The case of <strong>Pfizer Inc. &amp; Ors. v. Softgel Healthcare Private Limited<\/strong>, adjudicated by the Madras High Court in 2025, stands as a compelling testament to this dynamic.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/cross-border-evidence-collection-under-the-hague-convention\/#Case_Summary\" >Case Summary<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/cross-border-evidence-collection-under-the-hague-convention\/#Detailed_Factual_Background\" >Detailed Factual Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/cross-border-evidence-collection-under-the-hague-convention\/#Detailed_Procedural_Background\" >Detailed Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/cross-border-evidence-collection-under-the-hague-convention\/#Issues_Involved\" >Issues Involved<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/cross-border-evidence-collection-under-the-hague-convention\/#Submissions_of_the_Parties\" >Submissions of the Parties<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/cross-border-evidence-collection-under-the-hague-convention\/#Petitioners\" >Petitioners<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/cross-border-evidence-collection-under-the-hague-convention\/#Respondent_Softgel\" >Respondent (Softgel)<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/cross-border-evidence-collection-under-the-hague-convention\/#Judgments_Cited\" >Judgments Cited<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/cross-border-evidence-collection-under-the-hague-convention\/#Judicial_Reasoning_and_Analysis\" >Judicial Reasoning and Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/cross-border-evidence-collection-under-the-hague-convention\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/cross-border-evidence-collection-under-the-hague-convention\/#Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Law Settled in This Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/cross-border-evidence-collection-under-the-hague-convention\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>This legal battle, rooted in a patent infringement dispute originating in the United States, showcases the intricate mechanisms of the Hague Evidence Convention and the principles of international comity. At its core, the case examines whether an Indian court can compel a third party to produce evidence for a foreign litigation, balancing confidentiality, sovereignty, and the pursuit of justice across jurisdictions.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Factual_Background\"><\/span>Detailed Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The dispute traces its origins to a patent litigation pending before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, where Pfizer Inc., along with its affiliates FoldRx Pharmaceuticals, LLC, PF PRISM IMB B.V., and Wyeth LLC, alleged infringement of their &#8220;441 Patent.&#8221; This patent pertains to Tafamidis 61 mg capsules (VYNDAMAX), used for treating Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy.<\/p>\n<p>The petitioners claimed that Cipla and Zenara Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (now Hikma) submitted ANDAs to the U.S. FDA to market generic versions before the patent\u2019s expiration. Specifically, Cipla\u2019s ANDA No. 218409 and Zenara\u2019s ANDA No. 218205 were cited as infringing.<\/p>\n<p>Softgel Healthcare Private Limited, not a direct party to the U.S. case, was claimed to have crucial evidence. The petitioners sought this evidence through Letters Rogatory issued on May 13, 2024, under the Hague Evidence Convention.<\/p>\n<p>Softgel argued that Pfizer\u2019s application for VYNDAMAX was rejected in India under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, undermining the legitimacy of evidence collection efforts in India.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Detailed Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The petitioners filed O.P. (PT) Nos. 5 and 6 of 2024 before the Madras High Court under Order XXVI Rules 19-22 and Sections 78 and 151 of the CPC, seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner and establishment of a Confidentiality Club.<\/p>\n<p>Zenara raised confidentiality concerns and requested protection of the Letters Rogatory content, leading to a redacted version being filed. Softgel challenged the maintainability and propriety of the petitions.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_Involved\"><\/span>Issues Involved<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Jurisdiction and Maintainability<\/strong>: Could the Madras HC enforce Letters Rogatory against a non-party?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Scope of the Hague Convention<\/strong>: Did it allow oral and documentary evidence from third parties?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Conflict with Domestic Law<\/strong>: Did India&#8217;s patent rejection bar cooperation?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Confidentiality<\/strong>: Could commercial secrets be protected?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Specificity and Proportionality<\/strong>: Were the document requests valid or a \u201cfishing expedition\u201d?<\/li>\n<li><strong>International Comity<\/strong>: How should it be balanced with sovereignty and commercial interests?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Submissions_of_the_Parties\"><\/span>Submissions of the Parties<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Petitioners\"><\/span>Petitioners<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>They argued the Letters Rogatory were compliant with the Hague Convention and supported by the CPC. They proposed protective measures such as a Confidentiality Club and in-camera proceedings.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Respondent_Softgel\"><\/span>Respondent (Softgel)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>They argued they were not a party to the U.S. litigation and that disclosure conflicted with Articles 11 and 23 of the Hague Convention and Article 39 of TRIPS. They claimed the requests were vague and harmful to commercial interests.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgments_Cited\"><\/span>Judgments Cited<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Aventis Pharmaceuticals v. Dr. Reddy\u2019s<\/strong> \u2013 supported Letters Rogatory under Hague and CPC.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Pfizer Inc. v. Unimark Remedies<\/strong> \u2013 affirmed non-party evidence collection.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Wooster Products v. Magna Tek<\/strong> \u2013 emphasized judicial duty in cross-border cooperation.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Customs<\/strong> \u2013 established duty of third parties to assist in tort claims.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Leighton International v. Gavin John Hodge<\/strong> \u2013 limited documentary evidence from third parties.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Fenix Diamonds v. Carnegie<\/strong> \u2013 rejected non-party discovery requests.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Societe Nationale v. US District Court<\/strong> \u2013 introduced comity factors used by both parties.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Reasoning_and_Analysis\"><\/span>Judicial Reasoning and Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The judge upheld jurisdiction under CPC and Hague Convention. He emphasized that both oral and documentary evidence are allowed. The Letters Rogatory were found to be specific, and objections could be raised before the Commissioner.<\/p>\n<p>The rejection of the Indian patent was deemed irrelevant. Confidentiality was preserved via Confidentiality Club and in-camera hearings. The \u201cfishing expedition\u201d claim was rejected based on petitioner\u2019s categorical statements.<\/p>\n<p>The court aligned with Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, and Delhi High Courts in favor of evidence collection, emphasizing international cooperation without violating domestic law.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Madras High Court allowed the petitions on <strong>January 28, 2025<\/strong>. Mr. Adarsh Ramanujam was appointed as Local Commissioner. Confidentiality Club was established, and proceedings were ordered in-camera. Costs were to be borne by the petitioners.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled_in_This_Case\"><\/span>Law Settled in This Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Indian courts may assist in foreign litigation by compelling evidence from third parties under CPC and Hague Convention.<\/li>\n<li>Evidence includes both oral and documentary material.<\/li>\n<li>Specificity issues are delegated to Local Commissioners.<\/li>\n<li>Confidentiality may be protected through clubs and sealed proceedings.<\/li>\n<li>International comity must guide judicial cooperation, despite domestic patent decisions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Case Title:<\/strong> Pfizer Inc. &amp; Ors. Vs. Softgel Healthcare Private Limited<\/p>\n<p><strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> January 28, 2025<\/p>\n<p><strong>Case No.:<\/strong> O.P. (PT) Nos. 5 and 6 of 2024<\/p>\n<p><strong>Court:<\/strong> High Court of Judicature at Madras<\/p>\n<p><strong>Judge:<\/strong> Justice Abdul Quddhose<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<p><b>Disclaimer:\u00a0<\/b>The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n<p><b>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/b>, IP Adjutor &#8211; Patent and Trademark Attorney<br \/>\nEmail: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Case Summary In an era where global commerce and intellectual property disputes increasingly transcend national boundaries, the interplay between domestic laws and international judicial cooperation becomes a critical arena of legal exploration. The case of Pfizer Inc. &amp; Ors. v. Softgel Healthcare Private Limited, adjudicated by the Madras High Court in 2025, stands as a<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-6281","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6281","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6281"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6281\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6281"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6281"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6281"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}