Supreme Court Questions Enforcement of US Letters Rogatory, Flags Sovereignty and Reciprocity Concerns in Pfizer Patent Dispute

Supreme Court Questions Enforcement of US Letters Rogatory, Flags Sovereignty and Reciprocity Concerns in Pfizer Patent Dispute

Introduction

The Supreme Court has underscored that execution of Letters Rogatory issued by foreign courts cannot come at the cost of India’s sovereignty and must be guided by clear legal principles, particularly those of reciprocity and national interest. While hearing an appeal filed by Pfizer challenging a Madras High Court decision refusing to execute Letters Rogatory issued by a United States court, the Supreme Court observed that the issue transcends the dispute between the parties and raises important questions on how Indian courts should respond to foreign requests for judicial assistance.

Factual Background

The dispute arises from a patent infringement action initiated by Pfizer in the United States concerning its drug Vyndamax, which contains the active ingredient tafamidis. Pfizer holds a US patent covering specific crystalline forms of the drug and has sued Cipla and Zenara (now Hikma) before the US District Court for the District of Delaware.

Pfizer alleged that Softgel Healthcare Private Limited, a Chennai-based entity, was manufacturing the drug on behalf of the defendants. During the US proceedings, Pfizer sought access to documents and information relating to Softgel’s testing, development, and manufacturing processes. To obtain this material, Pfizer moved the US court, which issued Letters Rogatory seeking judicial assistance from Indian authorities.

Procedural Background

A Single Judge of the Madras High Court initially permitted execution of the Letters Rogatory. However, the order was set aside by a Division Bench, which refused enforcement. The High Court held that Indian courts cannot assist in vague or overly broad foreign pre-trial discovery exercises and noted that such discovery is not contemplated under the Hague Evidence Convention.

The High Court further relied on the fact that India has invoked Article 23 of the Convention, which allows refusal of requests aimed at pre-trial fishing expeditions. Aggrieved by this refusal, Pfizer approached the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether Indian courts are bound to execute Letters Rogatory issued by foreign courts as a matter of comity

2. Whether execution of Letters Rogatory permitting broad pre-trial discovery violates India’s sovereignty and treaty obligations

3. Whether reciprocity should guide Indian courts while responding to foreign judicial assistance requests

Contentions of the Parties

Pfizer, represented by Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, stressed the urgency of the matter, pointing out that the trial before the US District Court is scheduled to commence in April. It argued that refusal to execute the Letters Rogatory would seriously prejudice its ability to prosecute the US litigation.

Softgel Healthcare maintained that it is not a party to the US proceedings and that compelled disclosure would expose sensitive and confidential commercial information. It further pointed out that Pfizer’s corresponding Indian patent application had been rejected and is currently under appeal, weakening Pfizer’s claim for intrusive discovery.

Reasoning and Analysis

A Bench led by the Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, made it clear that the matter raises questions going far beyond the interests of the litigating parties. The Court observed that execution of Letters Rogatory cannot be automatic and must be examined through the lens of sovereignty, reciprocity, and treaty obligations.

The Chief Justice emphasised that while Indian courts respect the principle of comity of courts, it cannot operate uniformly without regard to how Indian litigants are treated abroad. The Bench repeatedly questioned whether Indian companies receive comparable cooperation when they seek judicial assistance from foreign courts.

The Court expressed concern that such requests could become instruments to “hijack information” across borders, particularly where sensitive commercial data is involved. It noted that India’s invocation of Article 23 of the Hague Evidence Convention reflects a conscious policy choice to resist broad pre-trial discovery mechanisms that resemble fishing or roving enquiries.

The Bench also indicated that the Union Government must be heard in the matter, given that the issue involves questions of national sovereignty, treaty interpretation, and international judicial cooperation.

Decision

The Supreme Court issued notice in the appeal, including to Softgel Healthcare, and indicated that the Union of India should also be impleaded and heard. The Court clarified that notice was being issued not merely to resolve the dispute between the parties, but to settle the law governing execution of Letters Rogatory and the limits of judicial assistance to foreign courts.

The matter will proceed for further consideration on these broader questions of law.