ffi, IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI I - Reserved on: 29th April and 3'd June, 20t0 Decision on: 15'n JulY, 2010 W.P. (C) No. 10400 of 2009 ZEPIIYR BIOMEDICALS ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari, Advocate. VETSUS LALIT MAHAJAN & ANR. .... Respondents Through: Ms. Saya Chaudhary and Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate for R-l. VIr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC for R-2. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER 15.07.2010 In terms of the common judgment rendered today in Writ Petition (Civil) 351612007 titled "Dr. (Miss) Snehtats C. Gupte v. (Jnion of India & Ors" along with eight connected writ petitions, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/- which will be paid by the Petitioner to Respondent No. l C- LalitMahajan within a period of four weeks. il A copy of the judgment passed in W.P. (C) No. 3516 of 2007 be placeC forthwith on the file. \-r, Ul S. MURALIDHAR, J JULY 15, 2010 dn 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 " t6 tt)Il IIV T'I{E I{nG[n co{J[tT' fxr DEn,x-II n"r t{[i,\4i lL)flt]l,l'illl Resetved ou: 29'l'April ancl 3"r -lrtttc. 2010 Decision ou:' [5tl' JrtlY, 20 | 0 . V\/.-P. (CI.l\o, l-516 of 2002 DR. (Miss) SNEHLATA C. GUPTE ... . l)oliliorrcr' ' Tluougli: Mr. Pravitt Auatrcl atrcl Mr'. -1. lja.p,tlr' -u,ith 1W-. Sagar Cha;rclra" Adrzocates. VEISUS trNIoN oF INDiif'3,ff, Ivr' Ruc,tir *,rf,ln''i'1il''"''' IzIr. Rahul Ja.iu, Advocates {br- R- | tu ll- il M.s. Pratibha M. Singh, z\chiocale lirr l{-5. -\tL ]tL@ I DR. (\4iss) SITEFILATA C.. GUPTE ..... I'c:lil ioncr' TluorLgh: Mr. Pra.vin Anartd ltrcl Mr'. .1. Iiagirr' wi tlr h/tr'. S aga r Clh a.n cl ra., A th,ocitl cs. I verstN LINION OF INDIA & ORS. . Reslronclertts 'Iluough : Ml. Rucbil Mislrr-a rry it li ivh. RahLrl Jain, Advocatcs lbr Tt- | to l{-.1 Ms. Pratibl:a M. Singh, Aclvocate lor l(-.'i $LP. (=C) No' 5:122 o{ 20,!Z -, DR. GIR.ISH J. RIND,^J{I . Pctitron('' Thlough: I\&-. Pravirt Artancl alrcl Mr'. -1. .tr[4ar' u'ith Mr. Sagar Cltatrdra, Aclvocatcs. VETSLIS . r.n\ITON OF INDIA & tlRf ..... l1esp<nclctt(rr Tluough: Mr. Ruc,hir Mishrer ra,itlr ifii Fi;lffl'; tffi:'ffi j::il;',,ilr 'T.1 W.n'. (C.) Ng.-5.[2? of ?0g7- DR 0"5ts) sNEHL;m,$ tH.t'ffi.,io A,,n',ct a,,,1 t'zi,ll-'ilfil ' with Mr'. Ijagar-Chaldra, Ach,ocirtes. tM.P.(cJ l\ios. 3376, esti,sazz, 542' of .20CI7 & 7a3gg, L04011 & 70450 {t 2009'Bt i0Z0 u! IIJ.U 1toge. .l tt.f 4t) '/*r . versus . i. LINION OF IhTDIA & ORS . " ftesportclettts Tluough: Mr-. Ruchir Mishra witlr ' Jvft'. Rahul Jain, Advocates for I{- I to ll-tl. .Ms. Prat'ibha M. Singh, Aclvocatc Ior l{:5. \ry;F-{qi No. 10J99 of ?009 ZEPHYR BIOMEDICALS ""' llelitiorrcr' Tllough: 1\4r-. Sanjeev l(Lrrnal''f iwitrr, Advocai.e . versus LAIIT MA-I-IAJAN & ANR, ..... Itc$lrotttlcnls IL', Tluough. A4r-. Maninder Singh, Senior Acivocate with iVs. .Saya Chaudhaly and ' lVir. Jaspr-eet Singh, Advooate [br I{- | . ' Mr. A.S. Chandhicl<, ASG vrith Tv[r-. Jatan Singh, CGSC fbr R-2. W.F. (C-) Ns. -1.0400 of 2009 ZEPHLR BIOMEDIC,AIS ... . l'ctilioncr' 'Tluough: A/ir-. Sanjeev I(ruuar T'irryari, Aclvocate. \/ersus . r LAr'Ir t*otTfliffi r,:lu{u cr,audharn^Jl;1'",'ttrcttrr; I\ft-. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate Ibr. I{- | . NIr. A.S.'Chandhiok, ASG ivith lVh'. Jatan Singh, CGSC IbL R-2. W.P. (-C-l F{o. n0459 of 2-0-09 . versus LAUT MAHAJz\N & ANR. .. .Rcsportclc;ttls . ThroLrgh: M-. Marinder Sirgh, Seniot' Advocate witli Ms. Sava Cha.ucliuu'r, rurc'i IVr'. ' ,ltt.PlQ N.os. 3576, 3517,5422, 5423 of 2007 & L0399, 1.0400 & 10450 of 2009 & 1"020 ol20J.0 \ '' ' t)ege 2 of 40 yl ,. Jaspreet Singh, Advoca.ie for tt- I ' IW-. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG rryith Mr' 'lit(att Singh, Advocate for R-2- W8.-LQJo= X-020.Pf 2 0x 0 rIB o r'c "'Tffi,{#frffifli}Hl:hiil, il *1tlii::. . Pradip 3m.rno and Mr-. Rupesh CLrpta' Advocates. verstls CONTROLLER OF PATENI'S, 4. t* ASSISTANT CONTROLLER ) DESIGNS & I'RADE MARI(S & oRS "" Itesporrclotrts Tlrough: i\ft. A.I(. Bhalclrvaj witlr ffi {iffi.,,'Tltl' Aclvooates ror ir- t 't I(-2 IVh-. Saulabh Banerjee, Advocate f or l{'3' CO[tAN'n : JLtrSTtrCE S" N{URALIDI{{d[{ 1' whether reportets of loca'lp'ai'per llla)i' be allt'rra'ctl : L /.- ^ to see the judgnrcil? v/ ' ,r'' /' 2. To be referred to the teportet'or rrot? \," ,u, ' 3. Whether the juclgrnent should be rel-err.ecl in tlrc digcsl'/ "' ) 'r l. The short b1t, interesting question of la.w cotllrlr()lr (o all tltcse petitions: When cair a patent be-saicl to be grautecl..rrndet thc Patcrrts Ac:|" , 1970 ('Act')? The question arises in the context of the distnissal ol'Pt'e- grant'oirpositions by the Controller of Pateuts.('Controllcr'') oll tlre ' grould that they were time-batrecl uuder Section 21. of the ,r\cl 2. The factual backgror-urd in each set of petitions is neoessitry to lre sct . W.l.(c) Nos. 35!.6, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 8t 70399, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 7020 of 701(l Page 3.of 4(l ?%' to apprecia.te how tJre questiou atises [br clctel.lrtitrirtiotr itt out in order each of them. I& rit Feti.ti,ots Fetifioms) (a) Nos. 3516, 3517, 5422 ancl 5423 t$'2$07 (X" ^Slct of' , 3. J. Mitra & Cornpauy Respondent No.5 in W.P- (C) hlo' 35 | 6 trl'2007 filecl two patent Application ldos. 590lDeIl2000 ancl 593lDell2000 irr tlre Cffice of tlre Controller on 14'l' Jnne 2000.1'he patcrrt slrocilicitiitrrls irwolved in the two applications were publishecl in the ollicial gazettc ott 20u' Norrember 2004 in telils of Section I l'A ol'tlte Acl. l\l tlrirt slitg,c" t, Section 25 of the Act ilacl,rnot'been arirended. Undet fict:liort 2ii tll'tlre pre-anendecl Act, arl .ollllositicri to the grant o.{'pateltt ltlrcl {o lrc l'ilctl u,ithil l'c1r, mouths ftorn fllat clay i.e., tlre cfate ol' ach'cttiscrircrlt (publication) which perioct cor-rld be extendeci by btte tttottlh uJron llre Controller being satisfied by the reasons given for suc.h delal'. 4. Span DiagnoSlics Ltd. ('SDL') filecl a pre-grerut o;"rposilir:rir r,r,'lr'ic:lt c,arlle to be rejecl.eci by ihe Controller on 23"t Atrgu.sl. 200(;. 'l'lrr: operative portio4 of tire order passed bl, the Co,trollei reacls a:; u'tlcr': "In vierry of the alrcve cliscussion ancl in cousicleLuli<ltt of tlie submissions of both the parties. I hereby ortlel' to grilnt [Patent hTo. 194639] on Pa.tent .r\pplicatjorr lrlo. 590/De1/2000 with the following cortditiotr . ) The Applicants shall give cross tefbrettcp to the lrzrtelrt application no. 593iDeI/2X00 or1 page 2 t.rl' tlr'": c.ornplele specif)ca.tion ancl strbnt it tl.r,; amend.ed/retypecl pzige(s) within a. rveek lionr the rlalc: of these orcler. Tlie Opposition oit Patent Alrplioltiotl lAi.P,tC) I\tos,3576, 9577,5422, 5423 o! 2007 8t 1.0ggg' 10400 & 1045O .o! 2OO9 " :r:;:"j,:;:: 23' , No. 590/Dell2000 (194639) is disposecl of in abovc tertns. No order to cost." 5. In terrns of Section 43 of the Act, where the applicatjolr lirl a llalctlt has been foiurcl to be in orderfor grant of patertt'ancl iI'thc irllPlir:trtitltr iras eiiher 1ot been reftised by the Controller or h.as'nor tr".,, lottrrtl itr contrarrention of the Act, the patent shall be grantecl as ex;reclitiotrslf il5; possible '"rvith the seal of the patent office aud tlre clate ort u'lticlt tlte " pat6nt is granted shall be enterecl in the Register". Utrcler"Set:ti<lrr zl-|(2), upotl tliE glant of patent, the Controller "shall publish the lhct thal tho I patelt hl, b."n grantecl and thereLrpon the application, spccilicati<.rti ilrrtl , t other docnments related thereto shall be open for public irrsl"tcctiorl"'' UncLer Rgle 55(5) of the Patents Rules 2003 ("Rules'), the Clolrtroller rvill examine the stateruelrt.urd evirJenc.e filed by the applicant ({irl' tlro grarlt Of patent) orrd. may .either refhse to grant the pa.terrt tlt' t'ct;rrit'c thc conflete specification.to be amended to his satisfaction Lleforc lhc Pirierrt is grantecl. Under Ruie 55 (6), tlie Cclnttoller slrali, atler ct.rttsriderinir, lhc o,',Y; o,tr-l srltltttissiott'q representalion (i.e. the pre-grellt oppositiott, if macle clr-rri1g the hearing if so requestecl, l'proceecl llu'tircr- sirnLrltaircotrsllt either rejectirrg the represen.ta.tiotr aucl grauting the ;:ateltt ot' tlc'oeP(itrg' the representaticn and refusing the grant of patent on tltal altlllicaliorr, ordinarily withiu .one montlt korn 'the cotlrpletiotr ol' llro fllrot'c proceedings". 6. Itisthec.aseof theRespouclentNq.5.I.Mjtra. &:Co.that rryltcrr otr'2.i"| A.trgdst 2006 the Controller rejectecl the pre-gran1. oppo:;itiort ['iletl l11' ttv.p.(C) Atos. 35L6, 35.77,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 1.ogg9, 70400 & 10450 of 20og n iltztt o,f 20L0 page 5 ol 40 "I . tr)' SDL and in fact in the order used tlre woi:ds "I here[r)' ortler' lo grirrrt patent.,.", this was simultaneotLs with the re.iection ol' thc ;lt'c-g,ratlt opposrtron rn terms of Rule 55(6) of the Rules aucl, therelbrc, 23"' Atrgrrsl 200G was the date o1 which the patent wa*S grante<J to -1. Mitrl.r & Coutpany. 7. On t1e very lext day, t.e.24.tt' August 2906 Dr. Srrbhlata Citrllte, tlte .' petitioner i1 W.P. (C) No. 3516 of 290i , filed a pre-grarlt oppt:siliolr t'i,s- a-ttis,Patent No. 194639 filed by -t. Mitra & Ca: A.ccor.clitrg to Dr Ctrptc, in terms of.the.aurenclments introcluced in Seclion 2.5(l) ol'tlre At:t [r)' : rvay of the Patents (Amenclment) Act,2005 with efl'ec{. Ii'orlt l'' .laltttitl'.)' 2005,the trme period for filing a pre-grant oppositiou sttiocl extcncletl till tl:e gr-a1t of the patent. Accorcling to the Petitiorrer, the lratelt[ rvtts ttot granted till such time it was not sealed aild entetecl in the l{ellistcr in Lerrus of Section 43(I) of the Act. It is stated tltat.as ort tltc dalc ol'llrc filing of the pre-grant opposition by Dr. Gupte, L.e.24t'August 2006, tlrc patedt in favour of J. Mitra & CotrrpAny lrad not beett grairtctl sirtc:c il lta<l .not yet been sealed.and entered in the Register. ,' B. On 5tr' September 2006, Dr. Girish Rjndani, the Petiliorrer irr Writ t Petition (C) No. 5422 oiZOOI filecl a pre-grant oplrosition rzrs-i)-r,is tlrc .paient application of J.Mitra & Co.. 9. It is not-in dispute that i:he Pa.tent No. 19tl639 gt-antecl to .1. Vlitta <k. Conrpany was entered in the Register on 22"'t SepLenrber 2()06. Pirtcrr[ W.P.(C)'Nos. s5L6, 3577t5422t 5423 of 2Oo7 & 7O399, 7O4OO & 7O45O of 2OOg & L020 af 20L.0 Page 6 af tlQ ) ) fif' l$q. I g4'53g grautecl to it was enlered in the ltegister olt 2.7rr' Sclrlcrnbct' 2006. Certified'copies of tlie relevant entrjes in the l{egiste; i',,tve lrcct, placed on recorcl. In teuns of Section 43(2) of the Acl" the. sititl ltvtr petitions of J, Mitra r3c Cornpany were published in tlre .ltltrt'ttlil o[' tlrc . Patqnt Office clated ITtl'Noveurber 2006. 10. On 16tl'October 20b6, flre pr.e-grant opposition of botlr lrctitjt,rrcis ., were rejected by the Controller ori the ground of nrairrtalnaltiliti,. 'l'lris; was done, irowever, rvithout affolcling the two Petitiotte.t's all ()l)l)(lt'trrltil.l' of being heard. On.31't October 2006,.both Petitioners'vvt'tttc to tlte controller seel<ing a hearing belbre.' re-iectiort ol' the pre-gt'itrtl oppositiorrs. On 23'.t January 2007.,the Coutr-ol lei gratrtecl t hc l)ct it it) ncr'.s a lrear-iitg. 'Ihereaftef on 30tl' April 2007 ancl- 3"1 May 2007" u,r'itlcrr statements were filed a.nd subrnissions were ach,ancecl bv.trotlr tlrc Petitioners before the Coritr-oller. 11. Writ Petjtjol (C) Nos. 3516 a1d 35 l1 of 2007 \,r/c;c flle<l [r), l)r'. Snehlata Gupte challenging the order datecl '16t1' Octotrcr' 2000 with reference to the Pa.tent lrlo, 1911639 aud 194638 respectivel),. ()n 22."" Mai, 2997, the Controller passed fi-esh orders rejecting ih,l pre-B,r'arrt oppositions of the Petitionets otr the ground that thg opp()sitiorrs \^/cle. lime-baneci. Both Petitioner-s i.e. Dr. Rindaui arrcl Dr. Gupte chrllongccl tlie said ord.r Catecl 22"d Mai, 2007 by friing Writ P'e,titior:r (C) lrtos. 54 )2 and 5423 of 2007 resi;ecti.rely. W-P,(C) t\!os. 3576, g577t5422t s42'3 of 2OO7 & 7T3gg, 7O4OO & 70450 of ZO09 & l0Z0.a! 201.0 pttge / o.f 40 O) I 2. The above petitions have been resisted by Respotrdenl Nlti. 5 -1. N4ilLa' & Co.'ft is coutelclecl that the order o.F the Controllel' was oolrliistettt u'i{lt tire correct positiol in larry. Accorcling to Respotrdent No.5, lhe tllirrg ol' tire two pre-grant opposrtigns b1, Dr. Gupte aucl Dr. I{inclarti tvrts ,,1*',, ,,,t abuse of tire prbcess of law. It is ailegecl by J. Mitra Br Clo. tlrirt SiDl,' rryhich js i1 the blsiness of sale ancl purcha.se of vnrious lthat'rttitr-:r:trlit:ttls proclucts, is a habitual infringer aud is deliberatell' alrcf t:ottsciott:sl)' violatilg various intellectual properties of J. Mitra & Co. SDl, is allcg'ctl .. to be coltinuing to infnnge the rights of Respomclent hlo.5 uriflr irrrprrnily. .} . It is oontended that each and every product in respect oJ'r,r'lriclr "1. Mitrrr : Bt Co.has applied folancl/or has beeu grantecl a.pateltt is cithcr' ltcirrg opposed or infi-inged by SDL. 13. Patent hlo. 194368 is for an invention titled."A Devic.:e lbr llrc detectioir of antibodies of Hepatitis C virus in hurnan selultr l'ttttl 1)lastttrt''. .Pa.tent No. 194639 is for an inventi.ou titled "A device ibr tlic rlctcction of Hepatitis C virns". Atler the grhrrt of the afot:eltretttionecl piitorrts irr its .favour, .I. Mitra &. Co. fileci Cirril.Suit (OS) No. 22020.o1'20()O irr this Court against l(esar Menclicarnents (KM) aricl SDL ior' llittcrrt infi-ingement. By t judgrnent clated 22"d February 2008. tlrjs Cour{ granted an injunction restlaining KM ancl SDL {i-orn ttrarrttltir;ttrrirrg,, sellir:g, offer-ing for sale their I-ICV Sigiral or alry other. pt'otluot wlriclr ,was in infi'ingbrnent of J. NIitra & Co's Pateut lrlo. l9l1638. lt il; s(alctl that jn tire saic] suit'SDL ha.q filecl a couuter clajnr for 1s1;1rc?r[iorr ol'tltc lratent. lAt.P.(c) Nos. 3516, 351"7,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70ggg, 70400 & 1.0450 of 2009 Bt 1.020 of 20tA . ' puge B n.[ 4O */, I Swbnissiofis af Cott.nsel i,tt tlrc I" Set o.f peti'tions lW-.F. (C) No' 3516 M' 2$07 etc.! 14. Appearilg for J. Mitr-a & Co., Ms.Pratibha Singh, leitrrtetl c;t)ttrtsicl, subinitted that both Dr. Snehlata Grpte un,i Dr. Rinclaui all-e o()llncctecl to SDL. Dr. Gupte is stated to be running the Surat l{al<taclarr lt endra. tltc .Chairman of which is M.. Pradeep I(. Desai whir is the '; , Chairman/lvlaira.giirg Director of SDL It is statecl that l)r. (-ittPte rvas aware of SDL's opposition io J. Mitra & Co's pateuts. Ms. Sirrglr lroilrtctl out that upon the said pre-grant ojlposition being r-e..Jectec"l ott 23''l Atlgrrtit 2006 the patent hacl to proceed lor.registration. Florvevet, io cotttitttre tlte serial.oppositious, first Dr.Grqlte filed a'pre-grant oppositiott on tltc rrot'.y next day i.e. 24Lt'Arigust 2006.. Dr. Rinclanj, who js a.lso sta{ed to lrc te pre-grattt oppositjolt oli 5tl' S.cptcnrtrer connected to SDL, filed a separate pre-grant oppo 2006. It is sgbnitted that the filing of selial oppositlotts tr1, l)ersorrs r:omrected to SDL after its pre-grant opposition hacl been reier:tecl uras malafide and if such app'licatlions'vvere pginrittecl to tre ertlel'lrtittccl, Ilrct'c would be no end to the filing of such pre-grant oppositions pxtrtir-:ulirrl1, since after the amendment to .Section. 25(1) iu 2005" ir llt'c-gt'itttt ollpositioll can be filed by .any persont I! ]r sLrbmittecl tlrat il-lltc stirnil Of the'Petitioners is accepted, it Would defbat tLre objectirre ol' tlrc At:t rvhich is to grant a patent rather than refusing it. \ 15. Ms. Singh forntecl out thq! in the rejoinder to its courttct'a{-lltlavit, tlrc Petitioners do not deny that Dr. Gupte is connected. to SDl,. ll is otrl1, stated thqt such averntents ate mjsleading "attd lhat thelr ltrtve rto bcarirrg on Lhe present case".'It'is further pointed out that Lhe petitionors.coittcrtcl IM.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5429 oI 2007 & 71gg4 7O4OO & 7O45O of 2009 8t L02o.ol )-01.0 page. 9 af 40 qx' - i1 the rejoincler that "it is imntaterial for the purposes 0f the ;ll'cscrrI t'r't'iI petitiol whether a person wlro files a ple-grant oppositiorr is rect.lt'tlccl trl or not recorded who is interested iir the coucernecl pateltt beirrg op;losetl"- ' 16. Rdferrilg rb tlie, decision in K.D. Slnarnut 1iOOS1 12 SCC 4{il. Nls.Singh subntitted that the Petitioners ltave, b)'" ttot disclosilrg tlrcir .rela.ticnship rvith SDL, not corle to the Court u,itlt cleart ltattcls rttrtl, therelbre are cLisentitled to the reliefs playecl for in tlte wl'it ltctititlrrs. r Refening to an" decisions in tslmgutin.ii.' fr/isltot,ii ?"lmkkat' I'. t\' .poovtnrntnnrlra. fn.nurlrllni Pa.ta.clia (l ggS) 2 6'I-lt 1 43'il itrt<l Entertaiwnent Nefiuot"lc ([ndia)' [-f.cl. t:. Swpbr Cassette {nrlrustries' tr,trl. (2008) 13 SCC 30 it is strbmittecl that a purposive cottsU'urctiotr rvotrlcl irarze to be adopted and it has to be ireld that iu ternrs ol'ltulc.55 (t)) ol' the Rules read witl.r Sectioir 43 (1) of tlre Act the prrl.ent is grrrrtlctl (ittc,c an order to that effect is passecl by the Controller siiuultaneous u,itlr lire rejec.tion of the first set of pre-grant oppositions which are clec:irlctl l-r), lhe !,. Controllei. lt is subrnittecl that tlrere has to be arr otrter tirrre linrit lbr' ,filing a. pre-grant oppositiou wliich in arr-y event catruot be lrc],ortcl lhc . date of the Controller passing an orcler on file gr.antirrg tlte l.ratertt. 't'lrc s.aling and entering of the patent :in the Register irre nlel'e rninistcrial ucr{s r,'rhich make no clifference to the da,te of the grant of tlre pa.Lcnt. I 17. N4s. Singh refers to an order. dated 2"'r Mhrch 2,009 ;titssc:il b1, 11,. t Snprerne CoLrrt ih SLF (Civil) l{o. 3522 of 20.09 ([n,r{i.an. Nc'fiporlr.' l;'or I ,Feoplewi.tlr I{Ift/,Ai.ds v. F. Ho.ffntann-X,ir ntoche,r"trG) rvhiolr iu'ose (i'orn w.P.(c) Nos. 3576, 3577,s422, SAZ\ if ZOOT & il399,.L0400 & 10450 of 2009'& L020 of 20'1(l plrge 70 of 4{) 21 , n! an orcler dated 30tl'January 2009 passecl by the Asststalt Clorrtlolli:l o[' parelts. This was heard with SLP (Civil) No. 29857 of 200tt Iilecl agairrst tlre juclgrnent claiecl 2"d December 2008 of the Maclras lligh C'tttrt't reported as Xndian. IYefwork (r Feof le with' trdftt/"'l,itts tt" Xr' lIrillinvnu- La Rocp.e AG INryIPR 2009 @ A016.I3y the saicl iuclgrnettt tlte Matlras J.Iig5 Cogft set a'sicle an orcler granting Roche a pateut wiLhotrt clislloriilrg 9f the pre-grant oppoiitiols filed b), the Indian Networ1< '[or l)cople tvitlr l-IIV/Aids nnder Section 25(1) of the Act. Therealter by ln orcler clatccl 3gtr' January ZO0gi the Assistant Controller re.lectecl the llrr:-gratrt opposition. The Supreme Conr[ without going into the rncrils ol' tlrc contentions ttrai the Petitioners were deprivecl 0f an opllorttrlritl' o(' raising before the Contr-oller nnrnetous contentiol'tFs ol1 tlerits, rlbscl'vctl that theli could be given p"rir.irrion to file on ul'ticlavit arrtl raise lrli con.tentions at the stage of post-gra.nt oppositions u,ltich hacl alt'catll, trecrr filed and were pencling belole tbe Controller. On the sh'e.rrgth ol' tlrc above order, it is submiite{ by leamed connsel fcrr .t. Mitrr .fL Co. {ha( pDL itself could file. post-grhnt opposition before the Controllct' arlcl" lherefore, no prejudice was.cansed by the gtalt of patcrit to thc Respondent No. 5 by the orclgr-cla.ted 23'n Atgtrst 2006. lrt itttl' e\uclll, SDL has also filed a counter-claim in the suit seel<irg tevocation rlf'tltc pateut. l B. IW. Plavin Ar1a3d and Mr-. J. Sagar, learned cotmsel lbr l)r'. (iuP(c anc1 Dr. Rirrdani, on the other hand, pointecl out to tl.re plea raisccl jn the plaint in C.S. (OS) No.2020 of 11006 filed by the.Resl:ontlcrrt Nlc.5 .1. W.P.(C) Nos. i576, i577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & tOggg, L0400 & 70450 of 2009 8t 102o af Zoto poge J.7 of 40 ). 3'' Mrtra &. Co. there is a clear adrniision to the been grantbd on 22ttd Septenrbet 2006- unclerstanding of J.Mitra & Co. itself. effecl that thc llatettt hercl This . was therejrrre tlre ,i 19. Learned connsel for the Petitioners also attackecl the bonallcles ol'-1. 'Mitra &Co. alleging that it Was an infinger which hacl appliecl lbr arrcl obtained a plethora. of patents'which were in fact copies ol' liaterrls itrrcl proclucts available rvorlclwitle atcl itr Inclia. tt is sttbtuittect tlrat tlre two pateirts rn question relate to a thrd and fotrrth genetatron device ltlr lhe cletectiol of HCV altiboclies in the hurnal serutll aucl plastrra. lJoth thc patents were irnitations of a patent obtailed by a US colllptlll)/" l-:Y .Laboratories, in lggl.I{owever, since EY Laboldtories clicl rrot havci a patenf iu India., proceedings could not be institutecl against.f . tVlitl'a & Ljo. for infi'ingement. 20. It is subrnitted by learned coirnsel for the petitionbrs that all clairns ol .I. Mitra & Co. filed in the United States Patent OIIce lratl Lrecrr rc.jcr;tcrl on the grorurds of obviousness and insuf'ficiency. It is pbinterl orrt Lr1, 1y1''. Aland that Respondent No. 5 hacl originally applied tbr lhc pittcrrls itr qr-restion with 14 claims followed by'reduction of clainrs to 7 al'ler r,r,lriclr tlie patent wais publishecl for opposition with the saicl 7 claiur.s. Wlren tlrc ;ratent was granted on 22"d Septeurber 2006, it was grantecl Jbl zl clairrrs. Claim L o.flthe 4 claims is statecl to be differeut liom tlre publiisherl CJairrr ' '[. Even after acknorvledgiug this to be a rnistake in its orcler clzrtccl 2.1''l Augtlst 2006, the Patent Olfice has not publishecl lhe. clairnrr lur' . W.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 7045O of 20Og & 1o2o ol 2o1o poge 1.2 ol4A Oi sf , opposition. It is stated that after the orcler clatecl .23''r Atrgtrrl{'2()C)6' tlre patelt office was turcler obligatiorr not to glant the pzrtent rvitlrirt llrlcre nonths of tfu.e statltory period of appeal so that an aggtievecl part-ir cgrtltl file a1 appeal. It is alleged tha.t the entire process of gra.nt ol';la(ent rvtrs d.one in a quick and clandestine iltaurrer so that tto olle wotrJtl l<lttllv atrorlt the sarne. 2L.It is subrnittecl by i\4r. Anand that the diagnostics ltit irrtltrstry is a ; \/ery slnall and close knit a.nd "evet-yore kuows everyolle irr this llclcl"- Claiming to bo among the leading scientists in their field" the l)etitiorrcrs state that "it is 1ot only their ch.rty but also their resporrsitrililt, lo elrstrrc ilra.t no unscrlrpulons trader usullls rights of other parties ul' ltlirlillltlely stops olher parties involvecl iu thjs fielcl." It iS sLrblrrittctl tlrat tlrc ilteution of the Petitioneis is "not to sta.ll the gi'a.rlt o1' ;:aLelrts brrt ttl tr')' . and ensure that no wrongful'patents are gtauted to urtsct'ultultlLts lr'atlers i1 the ilterest of the public"; It is submittecl tlrat a. patelt{ is a c;orltl.rlctc nronopolistic riglit and should be granted only aftel'clue cottsiclerttliotr. It ' is for this reason tha.t the legislatr.rre has built in varior-rs safegttitrcls lil<c pre-grarrt opposition, post-grant opposition, revoca.tious, cottrttcr-clilj trr for revocations and defences bf reriocatjou in a suit lor infii,tg",,.l",rt. It is stated tfiat the rvorcls of the statute are clear and tjll suclt littrc tlrc grarrt of the patent is nrade known by tJre publication iu the ollicial glz,etlo. it : cannot be said tc have been gtarrtec[ in la.w. ti is also poitrtecl otrt that llro .interpretation canvassed by counseI for Lospondent. lrlo.5 '"t'as ct)lltt'ilt'1r 1,, the crurent practice of the Controller's office aticl rvoulcl leril to :t g,teerl W.P.(C) Nos. i5i.6.. 3577,5422, 5423 'of 2007 & 70399, 70400 & L0450.of 2009 & 1020 of t-olo poge. l3 of 4Q ) oq. ,)n ' deal of avoidatr-le confusion. f7rit Fefitiort 6Cl":lVos. 103 9, 10400 artct 10450 petitionsJ 20'09 [2"'t sr'[ o{' iA 22. The r-eleva.nt facts are that Latit Mahaja.n Responclent No. I irr all thc Above writ petitiols filecl threg patent applicatiotts. tor grartt of paterrts being Applicationr Nos. 16BBlDell2007, 1689/Dell2001 on 8tr' ALtg'trs( 2007. In Application No. 1688 o1'20Q7,the inveutjon.relalctl lo a ilevicc for analysing the presence of Dertgue IgG antibodjes itl htrrtralr scrtrlrr and plasma. Application No. 1689 of 2007 relatecl.to the irtvcution ol'a kit for alalysing the preserce of deugue IgM antiboches ill llte ltttttlatt serlun or plasrna. Lalit Mahajarr also.filed two othel' applic:rtiolrs bcirrg l4lDell2005 and 75tDell2005 on [2tlt Jamrary 7005 iri relaliort lo a l)rrtt N4alaria. Stix and a Tetra Malaria fitix respectively Jbr testirrg ol'rirrrlirria. 23.LalitNiaha;an's Application lrlu. 16BB/Deli 2007 was lltrblislred irr tlrc' Jonrnal on,3l't August 2007 The patent was granted and ivas nlso sealccl on 16tl'October 2008. A pre-g1ant oirposition u,as filecl by the pc{ititttrcr Z,e.pbyr Biornedicals ('Zepir),r') ou 12tl' Decetnber 2008. 'l'trc 1"t'e-grartt rrpposition was rejected on 4tl'Marcli )OOg. Thjs orclel was clrlllerrgetl'l11' Zephyrin Writ Fetition (C) IrTo. iO:qg of 2909. 24. LalitMahajan's Applica.doir 1rTo. 1689/Del l20Cl rvas ptrbli:ihetl ott'7'r' Septembet 2007.. Tlre pa.tent.rva.s lranted and'sealecl orr l(itr' ()ctobcr' , 't r!. 2008. The.pre-g'aut oppositiol rvas filecl by Zephl/r' oll. l?"' l)e,:ettrbcr 2008. It was rejected on 4r'Mruch 2009. This order wels challertgc<l by ltl.P.(t:) Nos. 3576, 3577,54.24 5423 of 2007 & 70s99/ 10400