The Madras High Court has made a big splash! It rejected a request from a US court in Delaware asking for evidence from an Indian pharma company in the heated patent battle between Pfizer and Cipla. This request is called a Letters Rogatory—it’s a fancy term for international legal help. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar said no! The US court’s request from May 13, 2024, can’t be fulfilled because Article 23 of the Hague Convention lets countries say no to evidence requests that are all about collecting proof before trial. Here’s the backstory: Pfizer, the American pharma giant, is fighting Cipla and Zenara in a Delaware court. The war? Patent infringement over the drug Vyndamax, used to treat a serious heart condition called transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy. Cipla and Zenara got Softgel Healthcare Private Limited, based in Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu, to make their drug. That’s why Pfizer wanted to question Softgel through the US court’s request. Pfizer asked the Madras High Court to help by appointing a Legal Commissioner—a person who understands both chemistry and law—to gather evidence in front of a “Confidentiality Club.” This club would have lawyers from India and America, all bound to keep secrets safe. Earlier this year in January, a single judge said yes to Pfizer and allowed the evidence gathering. But Softgel didn’t like this order and appealed! Their senior lawyer, V. Raghavachari, argued that sharing confidential info would harm Softgel and Pfizer was just going on a wild goose chase disguised as legal inquiry. The Division Bench agreed! They noted Pfizer’s patent application in India was turned down, and the appeal is still on. The US lawsuit and Indian patent case are connected. The court said, "Softgel is not even a party in the US case or tied to Pfizer’s trade. So forcing them to share documents risks harming their own Indian patent." Also, the court said the US request was vague and didn’t follow Article 3 of the Hague Convention, which India and the US have agreed on. The judges reminded everyone that Softgel can refuse to give evidence under Article 11 as well. Importantly, Article 23 and India’s government rules exclude pre-trial discovery of documents, so Softgel was right to say no. With these strong words, the Division Bench wiped out the single judge’s earlier orders favoring Pfizer, bringing the battle to a surprising pause. This case shows how international laws and Indian courts protect local companies from overreach, especially in tricky patent fights. Stay tuned!