h1 , IN THE HIGI{ COI]RT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:29th April and 3'd June, 2010 Decision on: 15th July, 2010 W.P. (O No. 3517 of 2007 DR. (Miss) SNEHLATA C. GUPTE . Petitioner Through: Mr. Pravin Anand and Mr. J. Sagar with Mr. Sagar Chandra, Advocates. VETSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS .... Respbndents Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra with Mr. Rahul Jain, Advocates for R-l to R-4. Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Advocate for R-5. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER 15.07.2010 In terms of the common judgment rendered today in Writ Petition (Civil) 351612007 titled "Dr. (Miss) Snehlota C. Gupte v. Union of India & Ors" along with seven connected writ petitions, this writ petition is disrnissed with costs of Rs. 20,0001- which will be paid by the Petitioner to Respondent No.5 J. Mitra & Co. within a period of four weeks. ' A copy of the judgrnent passed in W.P. (C) No. 3516 of 2007 be placed forthwith on the file. L S. MURALIDHAR, J JULY L5, 2010 dn I r/ ,43-t' Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified o o, 5 IN T't{E I{IGX{ couRT' OF DEn X-trtr AT NIi'\\/ il)nil',l;llll Reservedott:29t1'Aprilancl3''r'ltttt<:'201() Decision ou:' I5tl' JulY, 20 |0 W,,F. (CI.l\e, 1516 of 2007 DR. (Miss) sNEHLATA C. GUPTE :..".'l)ol'ilit'rrtct' Tluou$li: Mr. Pravirl Ana.ucl allcl Mr" 'l' liagar' u,itjr IW'. Sagar Chandra" Advoclttes' VEI ST}S UNION OF INDiA & ORS' """ ltesportclerrts . Tluouglt: I\ft-. Ruclrir Nlishra witir I\zh. Rahul Jain, Advocaies I'or R- | to lt-il ' . Ms. Pratibha M. Si.ngh, Achrocale lbr I{-5' $/-@ DR (\4iss) t*utffi,t?,tHffivi. Atrairdarrcl t' lTliiill with 1W'. Sagar Clhandr-a' Aclriocatcs' versus LINION OF INDIA ct ORS' "" Respotrclents 'Iluough: Ml. Rucbir Mi$hra rryitli Ivfr-. Rahri]. Jain, Advocatcs lbr R- | to l{-'l Ms. Pra.tibha. M. Singir, Aclvooatc I'irr l(-.'i W.F. (e) I\o. 1i{22 of 2097 DR. G1R.ISH J. RIND/J\TI .. . l)t:tilrorr(''t' ' 'nr-'-^ --ir: i\ft-. Plarritr A'rtarrcl atld IVlr" 'l' li;lP,lr ' ilil:ili,' ,uuu,'cha*clra, Acii'ocaics vel sU.s - T.INTON OF INDIA & ORS. .... Re'spottclcnts Tluough: Mr. Ruchir Mishrzr u'itlr jvtr'. flalrrrI Jaiir, Acivocertes Ibr I{- | 1o l{-;l ', Irls. Pratibha lrf. Singh, Advocate {br lt-5 W.P. (A,Wo.5{&Lof 2992 p3. (}"{Jss) SNEHLATA C. GUPTE ..... l'<'tiliorrcr ThrorLgh. Mr. Pravitt Artalrcl'arlcl Nzit'. .1. Iiagirr' with Mr. Sagar Cltattdra, Aclvocitte:s. ' tM.P.iC) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 542.1 of 2007 B; 70399, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 & :t020 o{ 201.0 Page. .I rt.f 40 5l , VETSLlS .i. LrNIoN oF INDIttfi3*i: l\d' R*chir *;'f':"f""'rxlertrs Jvft-. Rahul.Jain, Advocates lbr R-l ttl l1-':l' .Ms: Pratibha M. Singh, Aclvocale f or I{-5' . w:P. (cJ No. i-0399 of a009 ..... l)etitiolrel' ZEPI-I.YR BIOMEDICALS Tlrrough. IW-. Sanjeev.l(ull'lal' f iwal't, : ' Advocal"e. versus LALIT MAHAJAN & ANR. ..... [tesptlntlelrls ffi:J:ujl' H;#*ri nder si'gri' se' i'r VIs. Saya Chaudhary aud Nir. Jaspreet Singh, Advoca.te lbr Il- l' Mr. A.S. Chairdhicl<, ASG rvith 1\zl-. Jatan Singh, CGSC 1'or I{-2 W.F. (C-) No- 10490 of 2009 ZEPH\T.BIOMEDIC,\LS ""' l'etiliottct' 'Tluougb: iVh. Sanjeev l(utrrar J'irvari, Aclvocate. \/e,rsus . LALIT MAI.IAJAN & ANR ltes;rortclcrtlr; Tluough. Ms. Saya ChaLrdhary arrcl M. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate ibr lt-'l . Mr. A.S.'Chandhiok, ASG iryith IMr-. Jatan Singh, CGSC IbL R-2. W8-(_Q I\0. L0as0 o[2-0.09- ZF,PI{YR BIOMF,DICAT-S . lrctilit:rtct' Tlrro tr glt : AzIr. S a.uj eerr l(rttt t at''l'i tvit r i, ' '| Advocate-' verstis LAIIT MAHAJZ\N & ANR ..... {tcs;ttlrrclctlls TliroLrgh: M-. Maninder Sr'ngh" Seniot: Advobate with Ms. Saya Clraudltal')' ;,trrcl ltll'. I of 2009 n nZO o.f 20l.Ll _ poge- 2 of 40 32 i , Jaspteet Singh, Achrocate for R I I\[t, A S.Ghandhiok, ASG rvith lvlr' 'ltt[att Singh, Advocate for R-2' W.F.- (C) hlo. 1920.-of 20xQ TIBOTEC PHARMACEUTICALS ""' l)et'itictrtcr Tluough: IW' Rajiv Nayyar ancl Mr" 'strclhir Narrclrajog,Sen.io'+q"?"utesrryit|rMt..l)ritgl,alt . Pradip Sl:arrna and Mr' Rupesh (iupta' Advocates' VETSTTS TFIEASSISTANTCONTROLLERoFPATENTS, DESIGNS A rnapE MARI(S & 9RS .... ltespr:rtclcttts Tluougli: I\,fr-- A'I(' Bhardwaj witlt Ms. Jagtati Singh, Aclvooates for l{-l & I{-2' M'. S- Majumdat r'vith .Nf]..SarrrablrBatretjee,Adrlocatefrlr.l{:3- COft dh4: J{JSTICE S" IvIUR'A'I-XDI-XAR' l.Wlretlrerreporterslofloc\lr[rperrt.raybeaIlclil,ct| to see the judgment? ,,/ .,. ../' 2. To be refered to the reporter or not? r'/' 3. Whether th.e juclgment should be referrecl iir tlrc digcst? ANU J{JDGN4Eh[T i -1. The short but.iilteresting'question of taw coltttllt)lt' (t-r all thcse petitions: when can a patent be saicl to be grantecl trnder thc l)atcrrts Acl" lg10 ('Arr';? The q'estion arises i'the context of tlie clisltrissal ol'P'e- : gralt oppositiols by the ioltroller of Pateuts .('Corltlollcr") ()rl the groturd that they were time-barrecl ilndet section 2.1 of llre Acl 2- The factual backgrolnd in eaclt set of petitiols is ttecessrtt'y t9 lle sct W.P.(c) Nos. 3516, 3577,5422, 5423 of 20.07 & 70ggg, 70400 & 7045,0 of 2009 & 7020 tlf 70fi l:oge i of 40 ' 02 )o'I I ogt in orcler to apprecia.te }ow tJre qlestiotr arises for cfete;lrrittatiglr itt , each of them. ipoit Futitiort (C) fVbs. i5f 6, 3517, 5422 irrtcl 5423 t2f'2$A7 (X" Slct 'rtl' . Fetifiorts) 3. J..MitLa & conrp,any Respondent ITo.5 in w.P. (C) ltlo. l5 I 0 trl'2(x)7 filecl tu,o patenr Application }tros. 590lDell2000 anct 593/Del/2000 irr the Cffice of the Controller on 14tl' June 2000. The paterrt' .sPcoilicitiiorrs iiivolved iri tire two applications rvere.publishect in tlre ollLcial gazettc otr 20'l'Noveurber.2004 in torms of Section 1lA ol the Act' Al [lritl sfitgc" Sectio' 25 of the Act haclrnot been arirendecJ. Unilel ficcliorr 2l' rll'tlre pre-anendecl Act, atl oppositicn to the graut o1 patepi I'r..i 1,, lrc l'ilctl *,itliin fcur. rnonths fiom l,hat clay i.e., tlie cla.te ,-,1: ittlvcl'tistltttettt . (pLrblication) which periocl could be extended by otte ttloltlh ttPbrr llrc , Controller being satisfied by the reasons giveu for such delay' " 4. Spal Diaglostics Ltd. ('SDL') filed a pte-graut oppositioir t'r''lric:lt aalte to be rejecteci by the Controlier otl 23"' Augtr.sl 2006. 'l'lrc . operative portion.of the order fassecl b), the CorrLlclllei r-eacls tl:i tttttlct': - l"I,'' vieu,' of the abcvb cliscussion and in cousicletatiorr of the submissionp of both the parties. I herebl, grilct' to gant [PatentNo. 194639] on Patent,r\pplicatiorr No. 590lDel2000 with the following condition The Applicants shall give cross refeteltce to the Patelrt application no. . 593iDel/7,000 on page 2 r-rl' Ilrc complete specification allcl subtitit tlrc amended/retypecl pzrge(s) within'a rveeh lionr the dirlc . of these o,rcler. The Opposition oit Pateut Apprlicaliort . lAi,P,(c) trtos, 351"6, 351,7,5422, 5423 o! 2007 & 10ggg, 1-0400 & L0450 of 2009 & 7020 of 201.0 . Irnge tl oJ 40 3 )r I No.590/De|12000(194639)isclisposeclofinatltlr,c . terttrs. No order to cost'" ..5. In terms of section 43 of the Act, whete the urppliczrtiott lor a llalent , .has been fo'ncl to be in order for grant of patetrf anct if thc apl)lir:atiorr iras eitlrer 1ot been reftised by the Controiler or h2s'tlot beetr lirturtl ilr contrarrention of the Act, the'paient shall be gra'tecl as exllctliti.trsll' 115 possible "wit['the seal .of the paLent office arrd the clate prr u'lticlt [ltc " patent is gra[ted shall be entetecl in the Registet'". Uncler sectiorr zl'](2)' L*olt ttq fani of patent, the Coutroller "shall publish the lhct that tlrc patent hl, b".n ganted and thereLrpoll the application, s;lcc'ilicatiotr.arrtl . other docurne'ts'related thereto shall be open for public irrs;-lcctitltr"' unc].er Rule 5l(5) of the patents Rules 2,0a3 ('Rtilcs'), tlre c'orrtr.ller rvill exarnine the statement and eviciettc.e filed by [he upplicallt (lirI tlrc grarrt of pate11t) ancl may either refrrse to gt1ut the patent or t.cqrrit'e [hc coruplete specification to be amencled to his satisfagtion beftr|r: llrc paiertt is grantecl. Under Rul'e 55 (6), the controlle.r shall, artl'er cotrsriderirr;-l' tlrc ' 1t opposition,' if any) arrd. subrtrisisiorrs representation (i.e. tire pre-grant opposltloll, lt ma.cld c1ui1g the hearing if so requested, l'proceecl furtircr sirnrrltartcotrsllr either rejectiilg tlie represen.tation ancl granting the patellt ttr accep(itrg ettt ott tlt'( t'1''1'ticalitltt' ' the representaticln and refusing the grarit of pat or{inarily within one month ft"om .the comirletiotr ol' lho ttlrove . proceeclings". 6. It is the c.ase of the Respo'clent Nq.5 .I. Mjtra &- co. that rvhe rr t)r'?.1"' Atrgust 2006 the Controller rejectecl the pre-grant o;tPot;itiorr ['iletl lly W.P.(c) N.os. 3516,.3577,5422, sAE of 2!01 &' 70sss' 70400 & L0450 of 200e !' lOrj':{:;;: 3"r SDL. and patent.... ", opposition 2006 was in facf.in the order rised the words "I'ltereb)' ortlet' ttl gritttl this'was sim'ltaneous with the re.iecticl' ,l' Ilte ;l'c-p,rattt in te11s of Rule 55(6) of the Rules a1cl,.tft"rqlbre' 23''l Atrgtrsl the .clate on.udrich the patent was granted to 'l Mitra dL Company. 7. On the rrery next clay, i.e. 24.u'August 2006,Dr.' Snblrlata (iLrllte' (lte J. Petitioner in w.P. (c) No. 3516 of 2007, filed a pre-graltt o;:ptrsitiott tri's- ct-ttispatent No. 194639 filed by .1. Mitra & Co'. A.ccorcling to l)r' Crrllto, in terms of the anendments iniroclucecl in Sectiort 25(l) 'o1' lhe Ac:t tt)' rvay of the patents (Anrenclment) Act, 2005 with elfect li-orrr l" .lattttirt'.1' 2005,Ihe tirne period for filing a pre-grant oppositiou stoocl extcncletl till t1r.e 'gra1t of the pdtent. According'to thd Petitioner, tlte 1lalerrt rvas ttttt gralted till such tirne it was not sealed a.nd entet-ecl in the ]{etlistcrt' itt ternis of Section aJ(1) of the,Act. It is stated that as ort tltc tlatc ol'llre filing of the pre-grant opposition by Dr. Grqrte, i.e."24tt'August 2006' tlrc paterit in favour of J. Mitra & Cornp4ny had not.been grantecl liiltc:o il hatl not yet been sealed'and entered in the Register. t't B. On 5tl' September 2006, Dr. Girish Rindani, the Petjliorrer iu Wtit Petition (C) No 5422 of 2007 filed a ple-gr-artt oppositiott rrts-t\-riir; {lte patent application of J.Mitra & Co.. tlre Patent No. 194.638 grarltecl tlre Register on 22"t Sglttetrrber to .1. Mitra & 2006. Patetrt 9. It is uot'in dispute tha.t Cornpanl/ was entered in W.P.(c)'Nos. 3576, 3577F422, 5423 of 2007 & 103gst 70400 & 70450 of 2o0s a iozo o.f 2t)7t) Poge 6 ol rl0 l{q. 194639 gra.r:tecl to it was enl.ered in the RegisteL cln 27rr'sclttertrlrot' 2006. Certifiecl.copies of the reievant eutries iu tlle Registel ltttve bccrt sctiou 43(2) of the Ac(" tlre sititl [tt'o placed ou recotd. Iu terms of S' petitiols of J, Mitra &. Cornpany were publishecl in.tJre Jrtrtrtttil ol'thc Patqnt Office clatecl 17tr' Noverirber 2006. 10. 01 16tl' October 2006, the pre-grant o.ppbsition ol'both l'etitjottcl's were rejected by the Controller ori the ground o1' trraitrtainabilitl' 'l'lris das done, liowever, rvithout affording the two Petitioners all opl)(lrtrrrlil.y oF being heard. On.'31't Octob er 2006, both Petitiotters qrlltto to tlte Coltroller seeltilg a healing belbre rejection ol'' {he llrc-;r,r'itrrt oppositiorrs. .On 23'd Qantsary 2007,the Controllei grantecl thc l)ciiti't)llcrs a lrearing. Tliereafter ott 30rl' April 2007 and i]"r May 2007. t'vrit{.crr were ach,altced lrv,.botlr tlrc 11. Writ Peti.tjorr (C) Nos. 35T6 aud 3517 of 2007 wci'c {llecl bJ' l)r'. Suehlata. Gupte challenging the order datecl l(rtl' Octobcr 200tr wjth leferelce to the Pa.tent No. 794639 a1d l.94638 respectivell'. O1 22"'' Maj, 29gJ, the Controller passed fi-esh orders rejecting th,: pt'e-glittrt 'i oppositions of the Petitionels olr the grouud tirat the opl)osititllrs \^/cl'e Lime-bageci. Both Petitiolers i.e.'Dr. Rindani ancl Dr. Guptc challe rrg,ctl tte said s1:fler dat ed,22'\d May 2007 by filing Writ Petitiorr (C) lrt05. -5422 and 5423 of 2001 resi:ecti',,ely. W.p.(c) NAs. s576, ss77,5424 542i of 2007 &J0399, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 7020 of 201.0 page / o.f 40 3e, staterirents were filed and snbtrtt.ssrons PetitionerS before the Controller. 'i 12. The above petitions have been resisted by Respotrderlt lrlo'.5 'l \4ilra' &. C.o. ft is corrtenilecl that the orcler of the Contro[Jel' was ccllrlris(ertt u'ilh the correct positiol i1 law. Accorcling to Responclent Ng.5" llrc tllirrg ol' the two pre-gr'ant oppositions by Dr. Gupte ancl Dr. Itirrclatti tv;ts itls.tr ati abuse of the prbcess of law. It is alleged by J. Mitra.g r.ig. tlrat SDI'" rnhich js in the business of sale ancl purchase of variolts jrltat'rrltrc:ctrlic:als tjl)|, is allctscrd rryitlr inpurrily. r,r,lticlt .1. Vli(r'n is eithcr bcing proclucts, is . a habitual infringer aud is deliberatell, arrd t:ottsciottlill' intellectual properties of J. Mitra. & Co- to be continuiug to ilfnlge the rights of Respolrclent No.5 It is coltelded that each and ev'ery plodlct in tespect o1' & Co. has applied for and/or has been gtantecl a.paterrt opposed or infi-inged by SDL. 13. Pate't No. 194368 is for an inveutiol titled "A Deviqre lbr tlre detectioir of altibodies of l{epa.titis C virus in hurnau settrlrr'tttttl ;tlasttta'". .Patent bTo. 194639 is for an.inventiou titled "A device lbr lhc tletcc(iorr .: of Hepalitis C virus". After the grhrrt of the afol-ettretttiorlecl 1;irtclr{s irr il.s favotrr, J. Mitra &. Co. fileci Civil.Suit (OS) No. 22020.o1'20()(r irr this Court against Kesar Menclicaments (KM) arid SJJI. ior llatctrt inli'ingelrent. By 'u judgment cJatecl 22"d Februar-y 2008. thjs Cotn't granted an. injunction restlaining KM ancl SDL liom tltalltl{ilcttrrirlg, selli1g, offering for sale their I{CV Signal ol' ally o{her- prtttlLrol u'ltic:lt . was in infi-ingbrneirt of J. N1itla & Co's PateLrtlrlo. 1946319. lt is stalctl tliat in tire said suit SDL has filecl a conuter clairn fot lsvqrcirtiort crl'tltc ' pa.tent. l/lt.p.(C) Nos. 3576, gStl,s4zz, 54n of 2007 & L0399, L0400 & 1.0450 of 2009 & lozlt oI20.t0 puge B of 40 3 7, 3f, Swbrrti.ssioris of Cou.nsel i.rt tlrc .1" Set o.[peti'tiorts !l4t-.F. ({')'htrt' 3516 til' I 2007 etc.J M ttta &Co." Ms.Pratibha Singh, leirt-tretl cortltscl, 14.. Appearing for J. s'rratlDlla Jlrlgtr' .' subrnitted tlrat both Dr. Snehlata Gupte aird Dr. Rinclaui at'e otttttrcctecl to ' '!' Lg the Sufat Ralrtaclirn Kelrcf ii, the SDL. Dr. Gupte is stated to be runuir' . Chairman of whicir is lW. Pradeep I(. Desai wltt'r is tlrc ,Chai11an/Mairagiirg Director of SDL. It is stated that Dr. .(jtrP|"e tvas ; ... . aware of SDL's opposition to J. Mitra & Co's patent.s. Ms. Sirrglr Poilrlcc' i. - ' I out that\rpo1 the s4id pre-grant opposition being rejectecl otl 23'" Atrgtrti{ 2006 the patent hadto procbed for registlation. I{orryevet, to cotttitrtre tltc serial oppositiols, first Dr.Gupte filed a pre-graut oppositiott ott tltc vct'.)' next day Le. Z4It'Adgust 2006. Dr. Rinclani, who js also stirted to be ' corurected'to SDL, filed a separ-ate pre-grant opposition oi 5tr' "\ielrteflrbel' 2006. It is sublritied that the filing of serial oppositiotrs.trl' l)etsorrs qorulected to SDL after its pre-grant opposition hacl been ,".1...t*,1 *'0, ma.lafide a1d if such app'licatious'wete pennitted to be elltel'taitlccl, tlrct'c woulcl be no end to the fili1g of such pre-grant oppositions pirrLir:ttlarll' ' since afte1 the anendment to Section 2-5(1) in 2005, a llt'c-gt'nttt oltposition can be filed by 'any p"rsont. It is submitted tha.t il'llte stirrrtl of the Petitioners is accepted, it would defeat the. objective ol' tlrc A.tr[ i which is to gtant a patent rather than relusing it. 15. Ms. Singh'pointed out thlt in the'rejoinder to its cottrtter a.llltlavil, tlre' -i '. Petitioners do not deny that Dr. Gupte is connected to,S[)]-. ll is olrl'v stated that such averments are misleading "attd thal. they ltave tro lrcat'irrg '' ,titit,,rcl's c:rttttottcl on Lhe present cass". It'is ftiither pointed out that the pe W.P.(C) Nos. i576, 9577,5422, 5423 of 2oo7 & 70399, 7o40o & 7o45o of 20Og & 7O2o of 2-Ol.O . page.9 af 40 n$ Dl in the rejoilcler that "it is immaterial for the purposes oI the P|csc;ttt t'r't'il petitiol whether a ilerson who files a pre-glant ollpositioli is rectllclc;d ttr or-not recorded rvho is interested in the concemecl patent belr:g tl1.r;losetl" 16. Referring to the decisiol itt I(.D. Slaarnm (2005) 12 S(C 48l," Nls.Silgh slbnritted that the Petitioriers havs, il1, ,',o, disclosilrg thcir' .rela.tiolship rvith SDI-, uot come to the Court u,itlt cleittt ltattcls llltd, theretbre zLre cLisentitled to the reliefs playecl for in tlrc wri{ petitiorrs. Referring to the decisions in .Blmgwuttii. l/t'.5[x111:ii. .'tr"lmlrkur r'. Frartittchctntlra. .fivurtblmi Pu.taclia (199!) 2 G'I-R I43lt .ittt<l Ertertnfutnrcttt Nenuoric (Indiu) [,td- tt. Su1ter Caskette fndtrstries tr',tu|. QA7q rc SCC 30 it is subrnittecl that a purposive constl'trctiotr wotrlcl 'hayd to be acLopted and it has'to be helcl that iu t.rols Ql'I{trle 55 (ti) ol' tlre R1les read lvith.section 43 (1) of the Act the patetrt is gl'irrttcd riircc a1 order to that effect is passecl by the Controller siiuultarreotrs rvillr (irc :." rejectibg of the first set of pre-grairt oppositions which n1'g i[sc:itled tr]' l lre Coltroller. It is submittecl that there has to be an outer tirrre lirrrit lor .fili1g a. pre-grant oppositiou wliich in any errettt catrttot be lrcyond the clpte of the Controller passing an orcler'orr {'ile gtar:tilrg tJrq lratcrrl. 'l'he . sealiirg and eltering of the patent in tlie Register are lttere rnirri.steriitl itc:ls r.'dtich make no. dilference to tlte da,te of the graut of the pzrLetlt. .l?. N4s. Srngh refers to an order.dated 2"" March 2.009 plssetl bJ'tlrc Suprerne CoLrrt ih SLF (Civil) i.Io. 3522 .of 20.Q9 ([rtdi,att Ne{iporlr xirtr Feople witlt tril|t/A,i.cls v. F. X{qffntnwvfd Roclrczl G) rvhiul, '11'11eo {i'ottl W.p.(C) Nps. j576, 3s77,s422, S+z't if zOOZ & t0399,.10400 & 70450 of 2009 & 7020 oJ 201"0 ' psge. t-0 of 4t) \"' .. ill orcler dated.30tL Jarruary 2009 passecl by the Assistarrt Clorltl'rlller tll' Parents. This was heard with sLP (civil) No. 29857 of 200tt lilecl agairrst . . the judgrnent clatecl 2'd Decernber 2008 of the lyaclras lliglr C'ottt't reportecl as trndian Networle F,or Feotrl,e witlt. IdlIt/"lids tt" X'. trlrlfiirttrrt'tt- LaRryhe,4,Gndllryl2009(2)0036..tsythesaicljudgtnetrttlteMadras High Court set asicle an orcler granting Roche a. patent wilhotrt cli'sposirrg 9f the pre-grant oppositions filed by the Indian Network {'or l)cople r'vitlr ' I{IV/Aids luder Section 25(I)of the Act. Thereaftet' by au ot'cler clatocl ,9,n Jan*ary 2009; trhe Assistant Controller rejectecl thc Prc-gt'attt "oppositiol. The Supierne Court, without going irlro the rttctits ol'[ltc cotltentions that the Petitroners were ,deprivecl of an opPort'trrritlr ot' '-'-"--'lrefnre tlre corrtt crits' obscl-r'ctl . ralsrng before the Controller rulnerous contentioils olr lll rn permission to file an a.ffida.vit ittttl ritise itll that they could be given permtsston to 'cotl.tetrtionsattlrestageofpost-grantoppositiorrsrvhiclrhaclah.ctltl),beerr fited ald wete pelding before tlre Contrloller. On .tJre strcrrgtlr t,l'tnc allorre order, it is submitted by learued Qonusel fcrr J. Mitra & Co. that ': SDL itself could file post-grant opposition before the Corrtrt:llor iriril" ' {.herefore, no prejudice was caused by the gratlt of .lratcrrf to 'tlre . Respondent No. 5 tiy the order clated ?3'"u ALrgust 2006. Itt lttry crucltl, ' SDL has also filed a counter-clairn in Lhe suit seeking revocatiolr o[.thc patent. ' i lB. I\ft-. Plavin A:rand alcl M1. J. Sagar, l'eunecl cotursel lor t)1. CiuPlc ( ancl Dr. Rildali; o1 the othbr hand, pointed oLrt to.tbe plea'riril;ed in tlre '. " plailt in C.S. (OS) No.2020 of 11006 filetl by the ftespondcnt Nc.5 .1. W.p.(C) Nos. j576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 103gg, 104Q0 & L0450 of 2-009 & 1o2o of 2o1o . Page L7of40 .. ; tl l, II T Mitr a &. Co. there is a. clear adrnissiou to tlie efl-ect that Lhc Pat'elrl had been graltbd on 22nd Septernber 2006. This was therelirre the , Lrnclerstanding of J'Miua &' Co- itself' 19. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also atta.clced the bonalicles ol"l. .: Mitra. &, Co. alleging that it was an infiinger which hacl appliocl ibl irrrcl obtained a plethora of patents which were in fact copies ol' llaterrts itttcl . ploducts available ivorldwiele and itr India. [t is subnritted that tlte [w<r patents i1 qlestion relate to a third and foufth gelteration devi'ce fill'llre cletection of HCV antiboclies in tire human serLlttt aucl plasltla. BoLlr thc ,. patents were irnitations of a patent obtained by a. US corrlpilll)/, l-,Y .Laboratories, in lggl.I{owever, since EY Labord.tories clid rrot ltavc it . patent in India, prooeedings could not be institr.rtesl against i. Vlitra tt t.lo. for infi'ingement. .: . 20. It is subnitted by learnecl counsel for the petitiortbrs tliat all clailtts ol' . .I. Mitra & Co.filed i1 the Ulited Siates Palent Ojllce ltatl Lrecrr rc.icctctl . on the grounds of obviotrsness and insufficieucy. It is poilrtecl otrl b)' Mr' Anancl that Respondent Nq..5 hact originally applied ibr the paterrLs irr question with 14. clairns followed by'reduction of c'lairns to 7 rr{ler rvhioh the patent wab published for opposition with the said 7 clainrs. When the ;ratent was grailted on 22"d Septenrber 2006,it was grantecl I'or 4 clairns. Claiin I of the 4.clairns is statbcl io be different fi'om tlre.published Clairrr r" 'l. Even after acknorvledging this to be amistake in its orcler clatccl 2-l''l Augqst 2006, the iPatent. Office has not published tJre olaitrtt; lbr' - w.p.(c) Nos. i576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 10399, 70400 & 1045d of 2009 & 7020 of 2o7o Page 1'2 of 4A 'I opposition. It is stated that after the'orcler clzrtecl 23"tAtrgust 2()06' tlre patent office was turcler obligatiorl not to g1a1t t|e patent tvithin lllrce nonthS of the statutory period of appeal so that an aggrievecl parll' cottltl l' - -r--- file a1 appeal. It iS alleged that t.he entire process.of grarlt ol'palettt rvas dole i1 a quick atd clandestine tnanner so that 11o olle wotrltl t<'tltlrv abottt ( the sarne. 2I.It is subrnitted by I\4r-. Auand that the cliagnost.ics l<it irriltrstfy isr rr very small ancl close knit and "everyone knows evelyone jrl tlris flcld"' Clairni'g to bc anong the leading scientists in their tield, tlte l)clitiorrcrs state that ".it is lot olly their duty but,also their re.sPonsibilirl,'11, ensufc that no uilscrupulous trader usulps rights of otirer parties ot ltlitlitfitlely stops other parties rnvolvecl iu thjs fielcl." It iS sLrbtrriltotl tlrat tlrc inleption of tire petitioneis is "'not to stall the gra.nt o1'patelrts [1;t {<-r tt'} and ei.slre that 10 wrongful'patents ale. $.anted tcl rutsct'ttlltrlotts tlacler-s i'. the interest of the ptrblic"; It is submittecl that a ;latertt is it conll:rlctc ponopolistic right and shoulcl be granted only aftel' clue cotrsicleratiorr. !t is for this reason tirat tire legislatnre has built iu rrat-iorrs sa-l'egtrarcls lil<c. pre-grarrt opposition, post-grant opposition, i'errocii.t'iot1s, cotltttct'clititlt for revocations and'defences bf rerrocation in a suit lor inft'ingelrrent- It is stated that the rvorcls of the statrite are clear and till suclr tirnc tl.rc grart( of the'patent is made known.by the publication in the olllcial gaz;etlo' tt calnot be said tc have been gtautecl in la.rry. It is also poirttecl t;trI tlrat tlre interpretation canvassed by'corursel for Lespondeul lrlo.5 '"r'its ctllttt'ill"y 1,., the cturent practice of the Controller's office arrcl rvoulcl leetl to rr g,r"eat w-P.(c) Nos. 35i.8 3517,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70ggg, L0400 & L045Q of 2009 & 1020 of l'oto PQqe '13 ol40 \fr. deal of avoiclable Y-9r 'confrrsion.' Writ Fetitiort (C) .'Nos. L03gg, 10400 and 104'50 Cf 20(]g 12"'t sir t17' peti.tiortsJ 22. Therelevant facts are that Latit Mahaja.n Responclent N0' I ilr all tlrc above writ petitiols filecl three patent applicaLions for g|anl tll'Paten(s being Application Nos. I6BBlDell200l , 1689lDell2007 t)' [4tr' 1\Lrgtr:it 2007 . In Application No. L688 of 2007, the iuveutiorr rela'tctl lo'a tlcvicc for anaiysi*g the presence of Deugue IgG'a'tibodjes ilr Strrtralr ser'rrrrl and plasma. Application No. 1689 of 2007 relatecl to tlre invctttiort ttl'a kit for analysing the presence'of dengue IgM antiboclies ilr tlte lttltttittt senun.or plasma. Lalit Mahajan also filed two other applicatiorrs beirrg l4.lDell2005 and 15tDell2005 oil l2trtJamrary 2005 in lelaliort 10 a P;rrr N4alar-ia Stix and a Tetra Malaria Slix respectively lor testirrg ttl'rrtlliri'i4.. 23.La1itNiahajal's Application No. 16BB/Deli2O01 was ltLrblishecl itt tlte' : Journal on 319t Ar.rgust 2001. The patent wis gtanted and r'vas itlso soalctl on l.6tl'October 2008. A pre-g1ant oirpositiori was filed by thc Pclitioncr' Zepbyr Bionedicals ('Zeph1;1r; on 12tl'Decembet 2008. '['5c 1t'c-gra't ' :jected on 4tl'March 20Og.This orctel'was clralterrgctl l11' oppostttoll \ryas reJectecl oll4 IVra Zephyr in Writ Petition (C) No- 10399 of 2009 "t 24 . LalitMahaj an' s Applicadoir No. 1 6 B9/Del 120C7 rvas p ub I ished o rt. 7'r' ,septernbe t 20QL The paterrt was granted and sealecl on l6tr' ()ctt,ticr' 2008. The pre-grant opposition \^/a.s fileci by Zephyr sn l2tr' Decettrber' 2008. It was reje.cted gn 4u' March 2009. This orc{ei' rvas challengecl bv w.P.(c) Nos. 3575, 9577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 703gg, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 &