lf, IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:29th April and 3'd June, 2010 Decision on: 15th July, 2010 W.P. (O No. 1020 oi20to TIBOTEC PHARMACEUTICALS .... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayyar and Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocates with Mr. Pragyan Pradip Sharma and Mr. Rupesh Gupta, Advocates. versus TI{E, AS SI STANT C ONTROLLER OF PATEN T 5,,-..--". DESIGNS & TRADE MARKS & ORS . _.--' Respondents Through: IVIr. A.K,Bhfdwaj with Ms. Jagrati Singh, Advocates for R-1 & R-2. \ik. S. Majumdar with Mr. Saurabh Banerjee, Advocate for R-3. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER 15.07.2010 In terms of the colnmon judgment rendered today in Writ Petition (Civil) 351612007 titled' "Dr. (Miss) Snehlatu C. Gupte v. (Jnion of India & Ors' along with eight connected writ petitions, this writ petition is dismissed with +'- costs of Rs. 20,0001- which will be paid by the Petitioner to Respondent No. 3 Cipla within a period of four weeks. A copy of the judgment passed in W.P. (C) No. 3516 of 2007 be placeci forthwfth on the file. JULY 15, 20I0 dn S.MURALIDHAR,J' ' 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 I I . [N TT{E {dNGX{ COURT OF DEN.X-II AT NE\4/ D[T[,I-JI[ 17, Reserved ou. 29ol' Apr:il and 3"' .lurtc. 20l0 Decision on:'15t" Jnly, 2010 I W.F. (C) No. 3516 of 2007 ' DR. (Miss) SNEHLATA C GUPTE '.. . Pctitiorrer' . Tlrough. Mr. Pravin Anaud ancl Mr'. .1. Sagar' rvith I\&'. Sagar Chandra. Adrzocates. versus .. UMON OF INDiA & ORS .... Respottdeirts il,I"ilfJi..,H.,lxl,i"Yl]l ?1il1',,,, o -o Ms. Pratibna M. Siirgh, Achrocate {br li-5. . uL@ TINION OF INDIA & ORS. ... h.".po,rdents 'Iluough: Nfi'. Rucbir MiShra rvitli ivh-. Rahul Jain, Advocatc.s fol R- ['to [t-zl Ms. Pratibha M. Sirigh, Advocare for R--s ' W.F. (C) No. 5_422 of 2007 DR. GIzuSH J. RIND,^J{I .:... Ircritrorrc,' *l;iHl #;,ia;l#:11#i.',Tl sasa VETSLIS r'INIoN oF INDIA & ..ffr, Mr. R*crit,. t;rfriiPo'clents iV[r'. Ralrul.iain, Advocertes for P.- | to R-4 ( , i{s. Pratibha}rI. Singh, Advocerte for lt-5. W.n'>, (C) hto. 5423 of 2007 /\rY!\'.nF .. DR. (l'"{iss) SNEHLATA C. GUPTE .... Peri'riorrer. Throrrgh: I\{r'. Pravin An:urcl arid ir{,'. -!. Sagirr- ' with Mr. Sagar-bhandra, Adrrocates. w-P.(c) Nos. 3576, g577,5422, s42.3 of 2007 & t03gg, 10400 & 704s0 of 2009 & 1020 o! z0J0 . ttoge .t of 40 . versus ^<v tl() tv I .t ..... Respondents UNION OF INDIA & ORS ,... Respondents Tlrough: iW'. Ruchir Mistrra witlr IW. Rahul Jain, Advocates for R- I to R-4. .Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Advocate for [1.--5 ' W:F. (C) No. 10399 of 2009 ZEPHYR BIOMEDICALS Tlrrough: I\ft'. Sanjeev l(runar Tiwali, Advocate versus I-ALIT MAHAJAN & ANR. ... Rcspondertts \ . Tluough: i\ft'. Maninder Singh, Senior Acivocate with lrls.' Saya Chaudhary and Nir. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate for R- | . i\{r. A.S. Chandhicl<, ASG with 1\4r'. Jatan Singh, CGSC for R-2. rff.F. (C) No. 10400 of 2009 ZEPH\aR BIOMEDIC,ALS ..... Petiliotter' 'Tluough: 1W-. Sanjeerr l(unal Tiwali, Advocate. versus LALIT MAI-IAJAN & ANR. ..... I{espotrdents Through: Ms. Saya Chaudhaly and IW Jaspreet Sirigh, Advocate fot'R- | . Nft..A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with : ,. A&-. Jatan Singh, CGSC for R-2. W,F. (O No. 10450 of 2009 ZEPHYR BIOMF,DICALS .... l)etitiolrer rnar Tiwari. Through: IW. Sanjeev l(uttrat Tiwarr auieev l(urrtar f iwari, jeev I(u Aclvocate- . versus LALIT MAHAJAN & ANR. Through: i\{r-. Maninder Singlt, Serrit')l' I vr Advocate witli Ms. Saya Chaudlralv arrd Mr'. {t.p.rc) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 &.70399, 10400 & 10450 of 2009 & L020 of 20LD '; page 2 of 4o '.,. -t /0I t) t, JasPreet Singh, Advocate for R- l ' M'. A.S. Ghandhiok, ASG rvith Mr' Jatan Singh, Advobate for R-2- N . . W.P. (C) i{o' [020 of 2010 TIBOTEC PHARMACEUTICALS "" Petitiorrer Tluough: M" Rajiv Nayyar and Mr' Strdhir ' Nandrajog, Senior Advocates with Mr' Pragyttn , Pradip Sharma and 1W-. Rupesh Grqlta, Advocates. ': VETSUS TIIE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS, DESIGNS & TRADE MARI(S & ORS ""' Ilesponclents Through: IW. A.I( Bhardwaj with Ms. Jagrati Singh, Advooates for R- I & I{-2' ' M'. S. Majurndar- r'vith AzIr. Saurabh Banerjee, Advocate for R:3' COR.AM: JIJSTICE S. MUR.A'LIDFXAR 1. Whether reporters etf localpaper inay be alloivecl' to see the.judgnent? ,'/ -,- L\J J|vV Lllv.J Llu6urvrrr; .v ' .,, ' 2. To be refered to the repofter or not? t'l 3. Whether the judgrnelt should be referred i1 ttre cligcst? JUpGMtrNT' l. The short but interestrng'cluestion of ia* colllllloll to all tlrese petitions: When can a patent be saicl to be grantecl ttuder tlrc Patents Act' . 1970 (.Act,)? The question arises rn the context of the clisnrissal ol'P|e- . grant oppositions by the Controller of Patents.('Controller') orl the ground that they wele tirne-barred under Section 2I ofth'e Act. ' 2. T[e factual backgroturd in eaclt set of petitions is necessary to be set . W.P.(C) Nos. 3516, 9577,5422, 5423 of 20.07 & 70399, 70400 & 70aSd of 200t . :::r2"{:;:: P' ogt in order to appreciate how the question arises for cletellnittation irt each of them. lilrit Petitiort (C) Nos. 3516, 3517, 5422 mrcl 5423 of 2007 (1" Set qf titiorts) 3. J. Mih'a & Compan{ Resporident No.5 in W.P. (C) No. 3516 ol'2007 filed two patent Application ltros. 590/Del/2000 and 593lDell2000 irr the . Cffice of the Controller cn 14tl' .June 2000. The patent speciticatiorts involved i1 tire two applications wele published in the official gazette orr 20u' Norr.r ber.2004 in tsrins of Section 11A of tbe Act. At tlrat stagc, , Sectibn 25 ofthe Act had'notlbeen arirended. Under Section 25 tr.f'tlte , pre-arnended Act, an oppositicn to the grant of patent hacl to be filod \r,ithtn fcl-r. rnolths ftom th.at day i.e., the date of aclvertisentent (plblication) which period could be extended by otte tnorttlt ttporr tlte Coltroller being satisfied by the reasons given forsuch delay. 4.SparrDiagnosticsLtd.(.SDL,)fi1edapre-grarrtopposjtjoirw|ric|r , came. to be rejecteci by the Controller on 23'd August 2006. 'l'lre . operative portion of the order fassed by the Coltrolier reacls as ttttclcr': '"In view of the abcve discussion and in consideratiorr oi t5. submissions of boih the parties. I hereby grcler to grant [Patent No. 194639] on Patent Applicatiott No. 590De112000 with the following condition: .) The Applicants shall give cross referenc,e to the patetrt application no. Sg3ipel/Z"b}} or page 2 o[' tlre corhplete specification and sr.,brnit tltc amended/retyped pzige(s) within a rveek'fi-ont the clalc of these orcler. Tlie Opposition oit Pateut Applicatiolr W,P.(C) Nos.3516, 3577,5422, 5423 o! 2007 & 70399, 10400 & 10450 of 2009 - jn\::;: No. 5901DeU2000 (194639) tenns. No order to cost." is disposed of itl above 5 hr terms of Section 43 of the Act, where the applicatiott I'or a pateut ' , .has been found to be in order for grant of patent ancl if the apptiparLion has either lot been reftised by the Controller or'has'not beeu lound in coltravention of the Act, the.patent shall be gtanted as expeclitiously n5 possible "with the seal of the patent office and the date on rryltich the i patelt is gralted shall be entered in the Register". Under Sectiorl 43(2), upon thl fant of patent, the Controller "shall f.tlllttt the fact that tlre patelt hls been granted and thereLlpoll the application, specificertion and other docnrnents related thereto shall be open for public ins;lection". Under Rlle 55(5) of the Patents Rule.s 2003 ('Rules'), the Corrtroller rvill examine the statement atd evidence filed by the.applicu,r, 1fur. the grant cf patent) and may either refuse to graut .the pateut ol reuuit'e the conplete specification to be amended to his satisfaction before tltc llateltt 'is gralted. Under Rule 5.5 (6), the Controller shall, zrfter cousicleriug tite representation (i.e. tire pre-grant opposition, if any) arrcl subrttissiorts macle c1ui1g the hearing if so rsquested, '.'proceed ftrrth.er sitnultarteotrsly either rejectirrg the representation and granting the patent or accelltilrg the represeltation and refusing the graut of patent on that application, . ordilarily within one rnonth from .the cornpletion' of thq 'above proceedings". 6. It is the c.ase of the Respor:rient Nq.5 J. Mitra & Co. that rryhert ott'23''l Augdst 2006 the Controlier rejected the pre-grarit opposition filed by w.p.(c) N.os. 3576, 3s77,s422, 5423 of 2007 & 703gg, 70400 & L0450 of 2009 a lbzo o.f 2070 Page 5 of 4O ,\.P, Y A'l 7tl .lt I SDL. and in fact in the order used the wor:ds "I'ltQreby orcler to grant patent...", this.was simultaneous with the rejection ol' tlre 1ll'e-gralrt opposition in tenns of Rule 55(6) of the Rules aud, therefot'e, 23"rAtrgtrst 2006 was the date on which the patent was granted to J. Mitra & Company. l. On the very next day, i.e. 24tt'August 2006 Dr. Snbhlata Gupte, [lte. Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3576 of 2907,fiIed a pre-gra,tt oppo*ition vru'- a-yi.sPatent No. 194639 filed by J. Mitra &. Co. According to Dr'. Gupte, in terms of the arnendments introduced in Sectio n 25(l). ol' the Ac;t by way of the Patents (Arnenclment) Act,2005 with effect fi'ortr l".lattttal'y 2005,the time period for filing a pre-grant opposition stood extendecl till the grant of the.patent. According to the Petitioner, the patent was ttot grantod till such tirne it was not sealed and enterecl in tlre Ilegister irt' terms of Section a3(1) of the Act. It is stated that as on the date'of the filing of the pre-gtant opposition by Dr. Gupte, i.e..241t' August 2006, the paterit in favour of J. Mitra & Comp?ny had not beeu grantecl siltce it hacl not yet been sealed and entered in the Register. .; 8. On 5tl' September 2006, Dr. Gilish Rindani, Xhe Petit'ionet in Writ Petition (C) No. 5422 of 2007 filed a pre-grant opposition vis-i-vis tlre patent application of J.Mrtra & Co.. \ 9. It is not.in digpute that Company was entered in W.P.(C)'Nos. 3575, 3577,5422, 5423 Patent No. 194638 granted to J. Mitra & Register on 22"u Septernber 2006. Paterrt of 2007 & 70399,'70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 7020 of 20Lo poge 6 of 40 .the ihe &Ao Nq. 1 94639 gralted to it was entered in the Registdr on'27't' Septenrber 2006. Certified.copies of the relevant entries in the Rbgister ha.ve lreert placed on record. In terms of Section a3(2j of tn. Act, the saitl trvo petitiols of J. Mitra & Cornpany were published in the JottrrlaiJ of the Patent Office clated 17tl'Novetnbet 2006- 10. On 16tl' October 2006, the pre-grant opposition of both Petitjotters weie rejected by the Controller. o[ the gtound of maintairrability. This was do1e, howeyer, without affording the two Petitioners alr opportrrttill' of being heard. 31't October 2006, both Petitioners vrrrote to tlte Controller seelcilg a. hearing belbre . rejection oF' tlre llre-grant oppositiorrs. On23'd January 2007,the Controllei granted the Petitiorrcrs a lrearing. Ihereafter 01 30tl' April 2007 ald 3''d May 2007, r'vrittett staternents were filed and subrnissions were advatrced by .both tlte PLtitionerS before the Controller. ! 11. Writ Petition (c) Nos. 3516 and 3517 of 2001 wefe filecl by Dr. Snehlata Gupte challenging the order dated 16'l; Octobcr 2006 with reference to the Patent No. 794639 aud 194638 respectively. on 22"" May 200 7, the Coirtroller passed fi-esh orders rejecting the pre-grant oppositions of the Petitioners on the ground that thg opllositiolls were time-bameci. Both Petitioners i.e. Dr. Rindani and'Dr. Gupte clrallerrged tlre sairj or:der Catecl 22"d }/ray 2007 by filing Writ Petition (C) Noi. 5422 and5423 of 2007 resi:ecti.rely. ' I w.P.(c) Nos- 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2OO7 & 7\3gg, 7O4AC & 70450 of 2009 & 7020 of 2070 " page 7 of 40 23, . 12. The above petitions have been resisted by Respoudent No- 5 J. Mitr'a. & 9o.'tt is co[tended that the order of the Controller was consistetrt rvitlt the correct p.ositiol in law. According to Respondent No..5, the t'ilirrg of ' the two pre-grant oppositiclns by Dr. Gupte and Dr. Rinclaui rvas also art ' abuse of the process of law. It is alleged by J. Mitra & Ct't. tltat SD[-, which is i1 the business of sale and purchase of varjons phannaccuticals products, is a habitual infringer and is deliberatell, atrd corlici0trsly violating various iutellectual ploperties of J. Mitra. & Co. SDL, i.s allegecl to be continuing to infringe the rights of Respondent No.5 with ilrlpunity. It is coltended that each and e1-ery product in respect of wltioh J- Mitra 8{. Co. has applied.for ald/or has been gtanted a.patettt is either being opposed or infi-inged bY SDL. . 13. Patent No. 194368 is for an invention titled "A DevjQe tbr llie detectiol of altibodies of Hepatitis C virus in hutnan serrur. aucl plaslrta.". Patent No. 194639 is for an-inventiou titled "A device fbr the clcteotion of Hepatitis C virus". After the gr:hut of the aforetnentjoned patetrLs in its favoru, J. Mitra & Co. fileci Civil Suit (OS) No.72020 ol'2006 ih this Court against Kesar Menclicaments (I(M) and SDL ioi patcrrt ' inf ingement. By a judgrnent dated .22"t February 2008. Lhjs Court gralted arr. injuncti.on restraining I(M and SDL fiom tnatttrftrr:tttritrg, sellilg, offering for sale. ther HCV Signal or ally. other product which. . was in infiingernent of J. NIitla & Co's Patent No. I 94638. It is stated - that in.tire said suit SDL has filecl a countet' clainr for tevocatiorl ol'the patent. lAl.P.(C) Nos.3516, g.5.77,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 10ggg, 70400 & L0450 of 2009 & L020 ol2010 I Poge I of 40 3\r Subtitissioris of Counsel in the 7't Set o.f petitions tW.!. (C) hto. 3 5I 5 of 2007 etc.J 14. Appearing for J. Mitr-a & 9o., Ms.Pratibha Singh, leauted cottnsel, submitted that both Dr. Snehlata Gupte and Dr. Rindani are oonnected to SDL. Dr. Gupte is stated to be rinning the Surat Raktadan Kendra, the . Chainnan of which is M'. Pradeep K. Desai wlto is tlre , ChainnanAvlairaging Director of SDL. It is stated that Dr. Gtrpte was aware of SDL's opposition to J. Mitra & Co's patents. Ms. Sirrgh pointett out that upon the said pre-gra:rt oilposition being rqected ort 23"1 August 2006 the patent had to proceed for registration. However, to coutittue tlte serial oppositions, first Dr.Gupte filed a pre-graxt oppositioll oll the very next day r.e.24tr' Adgust 2006. Dr. Rindani, who is also stated to be connected'to SDL, filed a separate pre-grant opposition oir 5ti'sellLenrber 2006. It is subrnitted that the filing of serial opposilions by persoris connected to SDL after its pre-grant opposition had been ...|..t"d *os rnalafide and if such app'lications'wdre qernritted to be eutertained, tltere would be no end to the filing of such pre-grant oppositions paltictrlatll' since after the arnendment to Section 25(I) in 2005, a pre-gratrt opposition can be filed by 'any persont. It is subrnitted that il'tlre statrd of the Petitionerc i, u.r.pted, it would defeat the objective of tlte Act which is to grant a patent rather than refusing it. . 15. Ms. Singh pointed out thal in the'rejoinder to its counter afllcJavit,.the Petitioners do not deny that Dr. Gupte is connected to SDL. It is only .Y stated that such avennents are rnisleading "ald that they have no bearing .on the present case". It'is ftirther pointed out that the petitionet-s cotttcttcl W.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70399, 7O4OO & 70450 of 2OO9 Bt L020 of 2o1o . page 9 of 40 tr i1 the rejoinder that "it is imnaterial for the puposes of tlte prescttt u'rit petition whether a person who files.a pre-grant opposition is recorclccl to or 1ot recorded who is interested in the concemecl patent being op;losecl" 16. Referring to the. decision in I(.D. Sharma (2008) 12 SCC 481. Nls.Singh subnritted that the Petitioners have, by not disclosing their , lelaticnslrip rvith SDL, not come to the Court u,ith cleart ltattc-ls ancl, theretbre are disentitled to the reliefs praygd for'in lhe writ petitions. ' Referring to the decisions in Bhagwar{i ltislt.uuii T'halelcar v. ' Pravincltartdra 'fivarfiltui Patadia (lggL) 2 GLI| . 1438 att<l \' Ertertainntent Nefiuorlc (India) Ltd v. Sapbr Cassette trfudustries Ltd. (2005) 13 SCC 30 itis subrnitted that a purposive constluctiorr woulcl avi: to be adopted and it has'to be helcl that in terurs of Rule 55 ((r) ot' t' the Rirles read with section 43 (1) of the Act the patentjs grantecl onoe an order to that effect is passed by the Controller siunrltaneous with the ' rejec.tibn of the'first set of pre-grant oppositions which are cleciclecl by the i. ' ' Controller. It is subrnitted thai there has to be arr outer tiure linri, lor .filing a. pre-grant oppositiou which in any event cauuot be bcyotrct the ate of the Controller passing an order on.file .granting t'lrq p31s11t. "l'lte sealing anC eltering of the patent in the Register eue lnere ntinisteiial ac:ts r,vhich make no diff.r.uce to the date of the glant of the pat"r,t. 1?. N4s. Singh refers to an order..dated 2."'r March. 2A09 passecl b), tlre Supreme Court ih SLP (Civil) i{o. 3522 .of 2O09 (hdian Nefivork For People witlt IiIV/Ai.cls v. F, I{offntann-Lu RoclrclQ whiclr arose liorn w.P.(c) Nos. 3576, ss77,5422, SAZI 67 ZOOZ & 7}3gg,,70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 7020 of 2070 Page 70 of 4O /st , an order dated 30tt' Jan rary 2009.passed by the Assistant Controllel' of Patents. This was heard with SLP (Civil) No. 29851 of 2008 filecl agaitrst . the judgment dated 2"d December 2008 of the Maclras lligh Cotrrt , 1 | ,l ^f -1,.- reported as Indian Networle {or Peolle witlt IIIIT/Aids v.. F-. [dqfftno.tt.t,- .. . La Roclrc ,4G MIPR 2009 (2) 0036. By the said judgrnetrt the Madrars High Court set aside an order granting Roche a patent withotrt clisposing. the pre-grant oppositions filed by the Indian Network for People with IIIV/Aids under Section 25(I) of the Act. Thereafter by ari ortler clatccl 30tl' January 2009; the 'Assistant Controller rejected the pre-grattt opposition. The Suprerne Court, without going into the tnerits ol'the . ..ut.1tions that the Petitioners were .deprived Of an opportunity o[' raising before the Confioller numerous contentions on tlrerits, tlbser-ued that they could be given perrnission to file an affidavit arrcl raise all . contentious at the stage of post-grant oppositions rryhich had alreatly lreen ' filed and were pending before the Conttoller. On the strerrgth o1'thp above order, it is.subrnitted by leamed counsel for J. Mitra & Co. that SDL itself could file post-grant opposition before the Controller ancl, therefore, no prejudice ryas cansed by the grant of patclrt to the Respondent No. 5 by the order dated ?3'd August 2006. lrr any evellt, SDL has also' filed a counter-clairn in the suit seekiltg revoca.tion o{'. the pate-ut. 18. IW. Plavin Aland and IvIr. J. Sagar, l'earned cotnsel for Dr. Gupte anci Dr. Rirrdani; on the other hand, pointed out to the plea raised irr the ^ f ^ a a'1 I I .l .plaint in C.S. (AS; No.2020 of 2006 filed by the Responclent No.5 .f . w.p.(c) Nos. j576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 703gg, 10400 i TOOSO of 2009. ;nj"lrr:;:, .' ,L), Mitra & Co. lhere is a.clear adrnissiori to the effect that the 1:atent ; was therelbre been grantbd or 22"" September 2006. 'llrtt understanding of J.Mifia & Co. itself. 19. Learned counsel for the Petiiioners also attackecl the bouatides ol'.1. Mitra & Co. alleging that it was. an infi-inger which had applied Ibr ancl obtained a plethora of patents which.were in fact copies of patetrts ancl products.available worldwiele and itr India. It is sr.rbruitted that the two patents in question relate to,a thrd and fotuth generation rJevice for tlle detection of HCV antibodies in ihe hurnan serurn and plasma. lloth the patents wele irnitations of a patent obtained by a US corupany, IIY Laboratgries, in lggl However, since EY Laboreitories clid not lrave a against J. Mitra & Co. patent in India, pro'ceedings could not be instituted for infiingernent. .: 20. It is subrnitted'by learned counsel for the petitionbrs that all clailns of Mitra & Co. filed in the United States Patent Office hacl been rejectecl dir the grounds of obviousness and insufficiency. It is pointec1 orrt by Mr. Anald that Respondent No. 5.hac[ originally applied for. the patelts in question r.vith 14 claims followed by'reduction of clairns to 7 after which the patent was published for opposition with the said 7 claitns. When tlte patent was granted on 22"u Septenber.2006, it was granted Ibr zl clainrs. Clairn I of the 4 clairns is stated to be different frorn the published Ctai'rn t" 1. Evel after aclanowledging this to be a mistake in its ordei <Jatecl 23"1 ' August 2006, the Patent Office has not published the clairns IbL . W.P.(C) Nos. 3576, i577,5422 542i of 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 7O2O of 2070 ' Psge L2 of 40 had the ,.i opposition It is stated that aftef the order dated 23'd August 2006, the patelt office was uirder obhgation not to gpant the patent withilr tlrree months of the statutory period of appeai so that an aggrieved partlr coulcl .i file an appeal. It is. alleged that the entire proces's.of grant of llatettt was done ir a quick and cl'ande.stine maluler sr: that lto one would l<trow aboLrt .( the sane. 2l.It is subrnitted by iW. A.nand that the diagnostics kit industry is a' very slnall and close knit and "everyone.knows everyoire in this ['ielcl". Clairning to be among the leading scientists in their field, the Petitiorrels state that "it is'not only their duty but also theirresponsibility to ettsttl'e that no unscmpulous trader usurps rights of other parties or tnalaficlely' stops other palties involvecl in this field." It is sLrbrnitted lhirt the iuteution of tire Petitioners is "not to stall the grant of patents bul to try and eisure that no wrongful .patents are granted to unscrupulous tra.clers in the interest of the public". It is subrnitted that a patent is a cotnplete monopolistic right and should be granted only after dLre consideration. It is for this reason that tire legislature has built in various safeguarcls lil<c pre-grarrt opposition, post-grant opposition, ievocatious, cottttter-clairtt for revocations and defences bf revocation in a suit tbr infringenrent. lt is stated that the words of the statute are clear and tiit suclt tituc the grant of the patent is rnadd known by the publica.tion iu the ofl'icial gazette, it carurot be said tc have been granted in law. It is also pointecl out that the interpretation canvassed by cornsel for respondentNo.5 lvas cotttrat'1r 1s the current practice of the Controller's office ancl 'r.vould leacl to a great ll/.P.(C) Nos. ili 6, 3577,5422, SaB of 2007 & 7tggg, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 7o2o of 2o7o page 7i of 40 fr fr. ')t, deal of avoidable confusion. Writ Fetitiort 1C1":wos. 103gg, 10400 attd 10450 of 2009 !2"'t set of petitiortsJ 22. The relevaut facts ar-e that Laljt Malrajari Respondent No- l in all tlre above writ petitions filed tluee patent applications. for g1uni ol'patettts being Application Nos. 1688/De1/2007 , 1689/Del12007 ott B'r' August 2007 . In Application No. 1688 of 2007 , the invention relatecl to a de'r'ice for a'alysi'g the presence of Dengue tiG.antibodies i* h*urar se.r'' .andplasrna. ApplicationNo. 1689 of 2007 related.to the invetltion ol-a. kit for analysing the preserce of dengue Iglvi antibodies in the httnrau seruln.or plasma. Lalit.Mahajan also filed two othei applications being 74.lDel2005 and i5lDell2005 on l2triJanuary 2005 iri relatiott to a Part N4alaria Stix a1d a Tetra Malaria Stix respectively for iesting ol'trralaria. 23.LaIitlViahajeur's Application No. 16881DeV2007 r,vas published in the' Jounal o1 31't August 2001 . The patent r.vas gtanted arrd was alstl sealecl on 16tl' October 2Q0S. A prg-gant ofposition was filed by the petitiouer Zephyr Biomedicals ('Zephyr') on 12u' December 2008. The pre-gra.t opposition was rejected on 4il'March 2009.This ordel was clrallengecl lly Zephyr in Writ Petition (C) No- 10399 of 2009. ...I Zi . l-atitMahaj an' s Applicarion No. l 689 lD elDOOl was p ubli shecl o u' 7 rr' Septernber