2.{' IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:29'.h April and 3'd June, 2OI0 Decision on: 15tn July, 2010 W.P. (O No. 5422 of 2007 DR. GIRISH J. RINDANI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pravin Anand and Mr. J. Sagar with Mr. Sagar Chandra, Advocates. VETSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS .... Respondents 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) Snehlata C. Gupte v. Union 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. 5 J. Mitra & Co. within a period of four weeks. A copy of the judgment passed in W.P. (C) No. 3516 of 2007 be placed forihwith on the file. 4-T /1- v/ S. MURALIDHAR, J JULY L5, 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 7tu 't nN T'FIE [dlGI-I COUI{T OF Dtrn,n-xn A'll' hlE\4/ [)l|in'rflil B::::,,".f ;J,. i;,1 ,tl'Jl'ril1,''' ,, ',,; 20 r0 l4r.-Ir. (-Q.l No' ;J5tr5 of 20-07 DR. (Miss) sNEHLATA C. GUPTE '...... l)otiliorrcr' Tlu-ougli: Mt-. Pra.r'irr'Ana.ncl attcl Mr" 'l' Sagar' u,itJr I\&-. Sagar Chalr(lra" Adrroc'ates' vetsus I-INION OF INDIA & ORS ""' Res;ronclerrts Tluough: T!ft-. Ruclrir N{ishra with i\&-. Rahul Ja.in, Advocates.for R- | to l{-il' M.s. Pratibha M' Singh, z\drrocale lor l1-5' uL@ DR (\4iss) SITEFILATA C.. GUPTE . l'clitioncr' TluorLgli: Mr. Pravitr Atra.tld r'rrcl Mr' -t. I'iirltirr' witlr NL" Sagar Clta'nclra' Achz(lcalcs' VETSTTS LI{ION OF IhTDIA ct ORS' ""' Reslri:rtclerrts 'fluough : M:r. Ruch il MrSrlrra rryitlr ivh. Rahul Jain, Adr/ooatcs lor It- I to tt-'l Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Aclvocate lirr' l(-ii SLF. (e) No. 54a2 on 2097 DR. GIRISI-I J' RIND/J{I "' l)ctitrt)n(}r' Ttrrough: Adr-. Pravin Aua.rrcl arrd lvlr'. -1. li;lg,ar' VETSLTS T.INTON OF INDIA & ORS. ..... llesporrdiutl ;xlilill,'Yl;,lli.ilr.YilTil'lll',,,,,*,, }4s. Pratiblrali. Singh, Aclvoczrte {irr l{-5. W.X'. (C.)-No. 5'83 of ?007 p3 (r"fiss) sNEHL\rA*.u tF,fil;viu Arta*ct arrcl N4r]l':'l:;Ii with Mr. Sagar Cltattdra, Achroc:rles' ' tU.i.iC) f\ios. 3376, g577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 703gg, 10400 8t 70450 of 2009 & .t020 tt! ZlJ0 ltoqe I o.f /JlJ ?tr () ' ]/et sus 'l ' I I ^ nnd -..r^ :' rr\TIoN oF INDIA & ORS .... ,llespon(lents \JL Though: Nii. Ructrir Mishra witlr Ivh'. Rahul Jain, Advocates ibr R- I to Il-"1'. Ms. Pratiblia M. Singir, Adrrocate firr I{-5' ' versus LALIT MAHAJAN & ANR. ..... l(cslrorttlcnls Tluouglr. lVl-. Ma;tincler Singh, Seniot. Acii,ocate rvith ilfs. Saya Chaudhary aud " Nir. Jaspreet Singh, Advoeate lbr Il- | . N.Ir. A.S. Chhirdhiol<, ASG vrith I\uh. Jatan Singh, CGSC ibr R-2. W.F. (Ci-I{p J 0a09-of 2009 ZEPI{LR BIOMEDIC,ALS .... l'etiliottct / ' Tluough: 1\4r-. Sanjeerr l(lurtar'firvar i, 'Aclvocate. \/ersus ... LALIT MAI.IAJAN & z\NR. .. l{esl.rorttlottlr; Tluough: Ms. Saya Chauclhaly arrcl IvL'. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate lbr It- | . NIr. A S.'Chandhiok, ASG ivith lVh'. Jatan Singh, CGSC lbr R-2. Z-tsPHYR BIOMEDICAT S ..... l'etitiortr:t' Throu glt: .M-. Sartjeev J(lrrrtar'['irva ri, Aclvocate. . . versus LALIT MAI{AJz\N & ANR. . ... .R.cspttrrdcttts Tlirough: I\&-. Malinder SJttglt, Senitrr Advocate witli Ms. Sat,a Clrauclluu't, luttj IVt'. )ut.P.(c) Nos.3516, g577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 703gg, 70400 & 10450 oj 2009 a ru20 o.f 7-01.0 ; -\ Phge. 2 uf tt| 31, Jaspreet Singh, Advocate for R- | ' ]VIrj. A.S. Cliandhiok, ASG ivith lvlr" 'litlarr Siugh,, Advoca.te for Il--2' ,AND ' IV,8' (-Q)'I!o' [020- of 2010 TIBOTEC PI{ARMACEUTICALS "" Petitiortcr .Tluotrgh.l\4r.Ralivlrlayyar.anc|Mr.Strc|lrir '**"tte.seniorAdvocaLesrryilhMr'l)t'itg1'n11 . Pradip SJrattna and Mr. Ilupesh (itrpta" ' Advocates. ' verstls TFIE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PA'IENTS, DESIGNS & TRADE MARI(S & ORS "" I?'espr:rtclcttts Tbrough. M-. A-I(. Bharclwaj rvitlr \4s. Jagrati'Singh; Aclvooates for 11-l &' I{-2' ' Nft. S. Majumdar r,vith VL-. Saurabli Barierjee, Advocate fbr l{:-{' co[tah,f : fi-lsrtrcE s" n4{JltA'.LnDn-n/\R 1, Wlretlrer reporters Of locallfqter litay lre allou't-'tl to see the judgnrcnt? ,,/ .r''' 2. lo be refered to the leportel or mt? x'/ ,/ 3. Whether the 1o,tgm"nt should be rel-err-ecl irr tl,c r"ligcst? "/ JIJpGn4 lEhl '[' : l. The short but intelesting questiot"t of larn, colllllloll (o .trll tlrcse petitions: When can'a'patent be saicl to be grantecl rtndet llrc l)atcrrts Acl" pj0 ('Act')?. The questjon arises in the context of the clistnissal ol'1rt'c- grant oppositions by the controller of Patents ('conlt'ollr:r'") ttrr tlle groturd that they wet-e tirne-barrecl under Section 2.1. ol. 1he Acl 2. The factual background in eacli set of petitions is,necessill'1r 11; be sct w.P.(c) Nos. 35.16, 3577,5422, 5423 of 20'07 8, 10ggg, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 7020 of 201a ' Psge j of tl(l .j ollt in ofcLer to alrprecia.te Jrow tJre qlestiol atises tbr clctet'ltllttlttl.(ttt ttl each of thetrt. sl, l,firit Fetiti.ort (C) Nos. 3516, 3i17, 5422 an'cl 5423 ttf'2007 (X'" J'in:t 'rt/' Fetifions) 3. J. Mitla ct company Resirondent lrlo.5 in w.P, (C) )tlo' l5 I 6 r:1'2(X)7 filecl tu,o lratent Application Nos. 590lDell2000 and 593lDell2000 irr llre Cifice of the Controller .on'14tl' June 2000. The patcrrt llrccillciliiorrs . i'volv'ed ip tire two applicartions were publishecl in tlre. ol'llcilrl gazettc orr '20th Norrember-2004 in tol'ms of Sectiou llA ol the Act. l\l tlrir{ slirg,c' . Section 25 ofthe Act bacLnot been arirendeci. Under Scr:liorr Zli rll'tlrc . pre-ameld.ecJ Act, an oppositicn to the graut oL patelri lrrrcl lo lrc l'ilctl \l,itlriu fcru.' moirtlrs ftorn llra,t clay i ", t]re cla.te r-ll' ittlvcl.tiseltrcttt (putrlication) wbich ireriocl corilcl be extenclecl by otle tttoltlh rlPorr llre Controller being satisfied by the reasons givetr for such clelal'' . 4 $pun Diagnoslics Ltd. ('SDL') filed a pre-gtant opllt'rsitioir r'r"lrit:lr . caule to be rejecl.e6i by ihe Controllet orl 23"t Atrgtrst 2006. 'l'lrr: operative portion o.f ihe order passecl b), the corrtrollei reacls tl:i tttttlc;t': 'In vieu.- of the alrcve cliscLrssion ancl in consicleralitlrr of t5e subrnissions of boih the parties J Sdieby 't'clcr' to grant [Patent lrTo- 194639] on Patent Applicalion Nlo. 590lDell2000 with the following conditr'ou'. ' i The Applicants shall give ci'oss rei'ererrcg to tlre ptrtelrl 'application no. 5931De112,000 o11 page 2 ol' tlrt; . courpleLe specifica.tiotl. utcl strbtnit tlrr: amended/retypecl pzige(s) within a rveelt Ir-onr tJie.'tlalc; .. of these orcler. 'tlie Oppqsitiol o1 Pa.t6ut. Appliclligtr . v1i,P.(c) Nos, 351.6,. gslT,sizz, 5423 o! 2007 8t 1.03gg, 70400 & 70450 .oI 2o0t * tr:::"::;:: t3, No.590lDell2000(194639)isdisposeclofiltetlttli,c tertns. No order to cost." 5. In terrls of Section 43 ofthe Act, where the applicaLjott.lor a patettt ,.has beeir fo*'cl to be i1 order for grant of patent ancl iI'tlrc apPliotrtiorr has eiiher not been refused by the Controller ot has'uol beclr lilurrtl ilr' contraventiol of the Act, the paiept shall be gtantecl as cxpeilititrLrsl)' ls possible "rryith the seal of the pa[ent office and tJrc clatc Ort trylriclr tlre " patent ts granted shall be enterecl in the Registet'"' U"tl*' Ser:titlrr 4:i(2)' upon thl grant of patent, the coutroller "shall prublislr tjre lhct tltal tlrc eleLlpoll tlre a,pplicatiot-t, s;rcc.ilicittitltt itrrt| patent hAs been glanted and th other docnme'ts related thereto sha.ll be opet fbr pulilic irrs;-rccti.rrl'. Under Rr.rle 55(5) of the Patents Rules 2003 ('Rules'), the C.lolrtrollel' rvill exaurine the statement s:rd evicieuce filed,by the applicant ([or tlrc grarrt of patelt) ancl may'either refrrse to gta.nt the paterlt tlt' t'et;rrit'c thc conrplete specificatron to be amencled to his satisfaction belbrr: llrc Paiettt is gralted. Under Rr-rle 55 (6), the Controller shall, arllet:colrsricleritrg lhc representation (i.e. tire pre-grant opposition, if any) attd. srttbtrtissri0rrs nracle cllrilg the hearing if so requested", l'proceecl ltrtir.or silttLrltartcotrslY eitliei rejectilg the represen.taliol ancl graltilg the 1:a.lelrt oracccptirrg the representaticln and ref,.rsing the grant of patent on tltal it1'rplicaliotr, ordilarily withil ore noutlr fi'on .the conrpletiop ol' llrc allpye proceediugs". 6. It is the c.ase of the Responclent Nq.5 .T. Mjtra &:' co. tltat rvherr ott'2'ii"r A.ugdst 2006 the controller rejectecl the pre-gratrt clpl:ositiorr [iletl ll1'. tM.p.(C) N.os. iStG, 9577,5422, 5423 of 2A07 & L0999, 70400 & 704s0 of 2oog n tbn o.f 2010 p(tge li of 4O 3\r [;DL ancl i1 fact in the ordellsed the words *I herebl'grtlerl ttl g;irrrt pateut...", this.was simultaneotrs with the le-iection ol' tllc ;lt'c-gt'itttI opilosition rn terms of Rule 55(6) of the Rules arcl, thet-elot'e' 23"' Attg,tls[ 2006 was the clate on which the paterrt was'granted {.o 'l:,l\4itrrl &' Compauy. 7. On the rrery next day, r.e.2tl'tt' Augr-rst 2006 Dr'.'snbhlatrr (iLr1lte, llte petitioner i1 W.p. (C) No. 3516 o!'200J,fited a pl'e-grarrl oPPositiott t'r,t'- a.-yi.s,patent No. 1g463g filed by -t. Mitra & co. A.ccorcliilg to Dr. (irrptc, in terms of the amendments intr-oclticecl in Section 25(l) ol'lhe At:( [r.)' way of the Patents (Amenclment) Act, 2005 with efl'ecl- fi'onr l'' -lttttttat'.1' 2005,the time peribd for filing a pre-grant oppositiou stoocl extencletl till patelt. Accorclilg to the Petition"t', tlte llatelit tvits ltgt graltod till such tine it was not sealed and euteted in the l{ellistc't'itt terms of Section 43(1) of the Acl.. It is stated that as orr tltc tlatc rll' fiting of the pre-gta.nt opposition by Dr. Gr.rpte, i.e. 24tt'Atrgtrst 2006" paterit in favou of J. Mitra & Cornpany hacl uot beett gralrtctl sriltc:c il not yet been sealed aud eutered in the Register. B. On 5tl'. Septenib.er 2006, br. Girish Rjndarri, the Petilior,rer irr Writ Petition (C) No 5422 of 2001 filed a pre-gr.arrt oppositittrt vts-i\-r,i:i tlte pateut application of J.Mitr.a & Co.. tlre Patent No. 194638 greurtecl to .f . tVtitra <Q. tlre Register on 22"" SelyLcltrtrer 2006 Palcrrt of 2OO7 & TBiggt'7o4oo & L0450 af zOOn * ,nrn t:,f 201t) page 6 o[ 40 tlre tlrc lrarl 9. It is uot'iu. digpute tha.t Company was entered in W.P-(C)'Nos- 3576, E577,5422, 5423 3s' lrlq. 1 g4.G3g gralteci to it was ent.ered in tlie Register ort 27't' licPtelrrbct' 2006. Certified.copies of the relevant entries. iri the Itegistcl hatve bercrrt placed on recorcl. In tertns of Section 3(2). of the Ac(, tlre :rititl ltvtr petitions of J, Mitr'a 8t Companl/ were publishecl .in the .lottt'ttal rl['tlrc PatErrt Office cla.ted 17tl'Novetnber 2006. 10. On 16u' October 2:06, the pr"e-grant opposition ol'bolh lletitioncrs were rejected by the Contr-oller ori the ground ol'nraintitirlabilitl'. 't'lris wa.s done, liowever, rvithoutlafforiling the two Petitiorrel'si all (jl)l)(.ll'trrrri(1' of being heard.' On.31't.October 2006, both Petitiorters vvt'tttc to tllc Coltroller seeJ<i,1g a he.ar-ing belbre . re.jection of'' the ;ll'c-p-r'rllll oppositiorrs. On23'dJanuary 2007,the Controllei giarrtccl tlrc l)cti(iottcrs a lrear-ing. Thereaftel otl 30'r' Apri| 2007. ancl i]''l May 2007' tvrittctr staternents were filed. and subnrissions were ach,altcccl lrv.lroth [lrc PetitionerS befbr e the Contr-oller-. .., 11. Writ Petitron (C) Nos. 3516 11d 35lJ ol'2007 lver.c filccl b)' l)r' Suehlata Gupte challenging tlie order clzrtecl l(rt]' O<;tolrcr 2006 wrth reference to the Pa.tent I'tro. 194639 and 194638 respectively On 2?."'' May 29g 7, the Controller passecl fi-esh orders rejecting 1lr,: ple-glarrl oppositions of the Petitioners orr the ground thal thg opltositiolrs \^/cl"c time-baleci. Both Petitioner-s i.e. Dr. Rindani attd'Dr. Guptc challerrg,ccl tlre saicl or,der Catecl 22"d May 2007 by fiting Writ Petitiort (C) 1\os. 54'):l end 5423 of 2C07 resi;ecti.rely. Vl/-p.(C) Alos. i576, !s77r5422t s42i of z0o7 & 70399, 70400 & 704 5O of 2009 & 7020 of 201.0 Page / o.f 40 S€, L2.'lhe above petitions have been resisted by Respotrdent No' 5 'l' Milra' &" C,o. .It is corrtenitecl that the orclgr of the Controllef was cotrl;is{ertt willt the correct position in larry. Accorcling io Redpondent Nct'5' lhc {llilrg o{' the two pre-grant oppositi-ons by Dr. Gqlte aild Dr. J{ilrcl.alti rvits irlso ittt abuse of the prbcess of law. It is allegecl by J. Mitra 8r Co. tlrat li[)]'"' iryhich is in the bnsiness of sale ancl purcha.se of vat'jorts itltarltrirc'ctrlic:ills proclucts, is a habitua.l infi-inger and is.delibela.t'el} atrcl t:tittriciotrsl-\' violating various iniellecnral ptoperties of .I. Mitra & Co- ljDl, is allcg'cd rhts of Restlorlcleut No.5 rvitlr irrrptlrrily' to be contiuuing to infringe the rights of Resllorrcle It ii coltended tbat each ancl ei,'ery procltrct itt respect ol'vt'lticlr -l' Mit[il B,- !,o has applied for and/or has been.grarrtecl a'paterrt is cilhcr lrcirrg opposed or infi-inged by SDL. 13. Patent lrTo. 194368 is for an invention titled "A Devi,je lor thc iletectiol of altibodies of I{e1;atitis C virus jtr hutttau seltrllr arttl lllaslrta'". .Patentblo. 194639 is for an.inventiou titled "A device tbr tirc tlc(cctiorr of Hepatitis C vil'us". After the glhtt of the afolelnetttiorted pirtetlls irr ils favour, J Mitra & Co. fileci Civil Suit (OS) No. 22020,o1'20()6 irr thi:i Court against l(esiir Menclicarnents (I(M) aricl SDl., ior' Patcrrt infiingernent. By a judgrnent dated 22"t Februat'y 200U. tlrj's L'otrrl granted an. injuncti.on restraining KM aucl SDL fi-om lllalltllaottrriltg, , selling, offering for sale their I-ICV Signal or alty other llrotltrct u'lticlt ,was rn rnfirngbment of J. N1itra & Co's Patent hlo. 19/l63lt. lt ls srtalctl that jn the saicl strit SDL has filecl a conutet-clajnr fpr rerrt)ut[iorr o1'tlic pa.tent. tAt.p.(C) Nos. 5576, ssn54zz 54Zi of 2007 & 70399, L0400 & 1.0450 of 2009 & L020 ol20K' ' page B of 40 37, Swbnd.ssioris of Cou.nsel itt the.l'r.Set o.f peti'ti'ons !Ntf1F' (d':) htrt" l5l6 tt 2007 etc.J 14. Appearing for J. Mitr-a & Qo." Ms.Pratibha singh, leitutetl cottltsel" sdbrnitted that both Dr. Snehlata Gt4rte and Dr. Rinclaui zll-e o()lrrrcctccl trr SDL. Dr. Glpte is stated to be rrinning the Surat Ral<taclart lterrdl'tr' thc chainnan of rvhicir is M. Pradeep I(. Desai wlttt isi thc fSDL.Itisstatecltlra.tI)r.(-ltlll|ervas , Chainnar/)vlairaging Director o aware of SDL's opposition to J. Mitra &'Co's'patents. Ms. Sirrglr ltoilrtctl out that upon.the saicl.pr-d-grant opposition beipg rejected'ott 2'l''' Arri4trsil 2o06thepaterithadtoproceedforregistration'I-lorrzever'tocotttitlricthc serial oppositions, first Dr.Gr4lte filed a pte-grattt oppositrolt 0tr thc rrct'-y next day i.e.24tt' August 2006. Dr. Rinclaui, who js also statetl to lrc connected to SDL, filed a separate pre-grant opposition oti 5tr' licpteirrLrer' , I 2006. It is slbmitted that the filing of serial oppositions Lty l)ersorrs connected. to SDL after its pre-grant opposition lia.cl beett reiectccl urits l1a.lafide and if such app'lications'tvere pennittecl to be ett{et'titittcd, thcrc . woulcl be no end to the filing of such pre-grarrt oppositions lxrrtir-;trlar ly since after the ameldmerlt to Section 25(l) itt 2005" a ;lrc-61t'itttt oppositiolt catl be filed by 'an1, pe,'qont. .It is submittecl that il'tlrc stirtrtl of the Petitioners is.accepted, it rvould clefeht the. objective ol' tlrc A'ct ivhich is to grant a patent rathei than relusing it. t 15. Ms. Singh pointed out tha,t in the rejojnder to its cotrrttet'allltlavil, (lre Petitiolers" do not deny that Dr. Gupte is connected to IiDl-,. l{ is tlrrl'v stated'that such avernents are rnjsleading "altd that they ltave tto bcat'irr1l, o1 Lhe lrresent "ase". It is ftuther pointed out that Lhe petitioltors corttotttl W.p.(C) Nos. 35t6, gs17,5422, 5423 ol2007 & 7osgs, 7o4OO Bt 70450 of 2oog & 'J02.0 of 2Ol'O . page. 9 of 40 |',v in the rejoilcler that "it is immaterial for the lrlrposes of lhe prcscrtI r'r't'il petiljo1 rvhether a petsol] who files a pre-grallt opllositiolr is t'cr-;ot-tlocl ttr or.not recorded who is intei'ested irr the coltcelltecl patent beirrg o1r;losetl". 16. Referring to the.decision in K.D.'sknrnm (2008) 12 S&-: {ff . Ivls.Singh slbnritted thal the Petitionets ltave, by not clisolosil'ig tlreir' rela.ticlship rvith SDL, not come to the Cburt u,itlt cleitrt ltatttls ltrttl' theretbre are clisentitled to the reliefs prayecl foL in the wri( Petititirrs. Relbrring to the clecisions in tslt.agwanii, y/i,fil1.a\vii, T"trt.nlrkut' !'. Pravtrtch.sradra. "{fuatfitrmd pr.mAfn GggS) 2 6'l-R ' l43it tttt<l [-td. v- Syper Cnssette fntdrtsrries I'trl' .E ntet' taitante nt. Nettu or lc (t ndia) e44g) IJ SCC i0 it is submittecl that a purposirre coustructiotr ivotrltl lia.rr6.to be aclopterl ancl it has to be helcl tlrat iu ternrs ol'itrrl'l 55 (()) ol- theRlles read\,vith Sectiou 43'(l) of the Aot the pa.tenL is gl'arrl.ccl ortcc a1 oider to that.effect is passecl by the.Contr-oller sitntrltatretltrs tvilh lirc .rejectibl of the'first set of pre-grairt oppositions wlijch are clec:iclctl l-rJ' {lre ColLroller. It is slbrnittecl tha.t tl1ere has to be alr otttet'tilrre lilrrit lirr .tiling a pte-grant oppositiou which in any event catrttot'be [ri:1'1111d the date of the Coltroller pass.ing an orcler on fiie grarltirlg the Palcrrt 'l'he sealilg and entering of the paterlt in the Register itt-e lrlel'e rrlirristcrittl ac:ls r,vhich make no cliffereuce to the clate of the grant of the paLcrrt. 17. N4s. Silgh refers to an order.dated 2"'l March 2.009.passetl b1' 1;'. Suprerne Court ih'SLF (Civil) i.tro. 3522.of 20.09 l[rtdiutt, N.c'[rvrtt'k X]'or .Feoplewittt IIIft/,AitIi v. F. tr{a.ffntwut-X-n Riche,alG) rvlrioh itt'osc {i'ttttt tAt.p.(c) Nos. 3576, s577,s42"2, sazt irf zoor & n3ss,,70400 & 10450 of 2009 - 'l:";Zt:"r:;:" e1 , .altorclerdated30tl..Jarrrraqt200gpasseclbytlreAssjstarrtC]olrtr.r-t||cr.tl|' Pdrents. Thrs was lieard with sLP (Civil) No. 29857 of 2008 filecl irgai',nst ilre. j*dg*rent cldecl, 2"d.Decernber 200.8 of the lVlaclras lligh C,Lrt't reporlecl a.s xn.dian lYefiryorlc For Feopl.e witlt tr{IV/,',fri'ds i" li" llo.ftitt$tttt- . La lloclrc AG .nNPn 2009 (2) 0036. By the saicl juclgtttettt the Matlrrrs High Couft set asicle an orclet graniing Roche a patent wil.ltotrt cli'sllosirrg of the pr"-gruri oppositions filed bl, the Indian NetworJ< for l)cciple r,vitlr l{IV/Aids under Sectiol 25(I) of the Act. Thereafl.er b)' ,tu ot'clet' clatctl 30tt' Jun.lory 2009; the Assistalt Controller rejected thc Prc-gt'attt . oppositiol. The Supreme Comt, without going into tLle ntcrils ol'thc contentions that the Petitioners wele depr.ivecl of an opPoltrrrritl' ol' raisilg befor'e the Controller numerous contentiol't-s oll lttetits, ollsel'vccl that they colld be given permission to file art a.l'lidavit artrl rai:;e rtll col.te1tiols at.the stage of fosrgra.nt oppositiorrs r,r,hich hacl allca.cl)'beerr fi1edarrdwereperrc1irrgbeforetlr.eCorrtroller.orrtlrestt.crlgt|ttlI.t|rc aSove order, it is submittecl by lear-ued couusel fo.r .1. Mitril .tL C0. thal SDL itself colld file post-grant opposition before the Colrtrtlller i1itd" l-herefore, t1o prejudice lyas car-rsecl by the grant'. o1' Patcrt( ttl thc Responclent No. 5 by the order clatecl 23't Angrrst 2006. ltr tttt-y evcltl" ' SDL has also'filed a coruttet-claim in the suit seeltillg levocittiort tll''thc ' patent. jB. IW. Plavin Anand a1d ivlr-. J. Sagau-, l'earnecl cotursel lor l-)r. (irrll(c alci Dr. Rildani, on the other hand, pointecl oLrt to tLre plea raisecl irr thc plaiirt i1 C.S. (OS) IrTo.2020 of ',1006 filecl by the Itesllotrtlcnt No.5 -1. ' . W.p.(C) Nos. i5I6, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 103gg, 1.0400 & L045o of'2oos 8,'J020 of zafi ' Poge 1.I of 40 \rP I I Mitra &' Co. there is a'clealadnrission to the eflbcl that been graltbcl ol1 22"d Septem[er 2006. T[is wits unclerstandrng of J.Mitra & Co. itself. l.he patcttt therel<lre had tlrc 19. Learnecl counsel for the Petitioners also attackqcl the borrallclos tll"f ' \zfitia & Co. alleging that it Was an infringer which hacl appli6cl lbr antl obtailed a plethora. of patents whjch.wel-e in fact cbpies ol' llatcrtts artcl products available rvorldwitlc ancl in India. It is strbrnittecl that the two iratents in question relate to a third ancl forlrth gellera.tioil clevice fbr tlre detection of HCV altiboclies in ihe hutnan sen,ti ancl plaslrra. l:]otlr thc patelts were irnitations of a patent obtained by a US oollll)ilrl)/, l.jY .Laboratqries, in 199I. Ilowever, s;ince EY Laboreltories clitl rrol ltavc a patelt in India., proceedings qould rlot be institr"rtecl against .f . Vlitra & Co. for infi-ingetneut. 20. It is subruitted by learnecl counsel for the petitionbrs that all clairtts ol' .I. Mitra & Co. filed in the United States Patent Ollice hacl becrr rc.iccted on the grounds of obviousil,ess and insufficieucy. It is pclintecl ottt Lr1, 114''. A1ancl that Respondent No. 5 hacl originally applied f'or ltrc pitterrl.r; itr question with l4 claims foliowecl by'tecluction of claims to 7 rtlier rvlriclr the patent was published for. opposition with the saicl 7 cltuitrts. Wlrerr lhe patent was granted on 22"d Septeurber. 2006,it was grantect Jor 4 ,.;lailrts. Claim I of the 4 claims is stated to be dilfereut h'onr the publishctl Lllairrr [. Even a.fler acknorvledging this to be anistake in its orclet'dittecl 2.'l''' Angqst 2006, the Patent Office has not publishecl the claittrrr firr. vt/.P.(c) Nos. 3516, 3517,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 10399, 70400 & 70450 of 2.009 & 7020 t!^*:: . page 72 of 40 \t, opposition. It is stated that after the orclet' clatecl-23"r Augusl 2()06" the patelt office was ulcler obligatiou not to glant the pzrtent rvithilr tlrrcrc months of the sl'attrtory period of appeal so that an aggrievecl l"rat'l)' cottltj 1 r, ' l1 il rl . .t. IlIe an appear. It is alleged tha.t the entire proiess o1'gtarrt ol'llaterr('rvirs . clone ir.l a quick,and clandestine mannbr so that tro. orle woLrlt[ ltltorv atrtlttI 2I.Itis submitted by A,&. Auancl that the cliagnoslics ltii irrcltrstry is a \/ery small and close knit and "everyone. knorvs everyolle jrr lhis flold"- Clairning to be among the leading scieirtists in their. Iielcl, the l)etitiorrcrs siate that "it is not only flreir duty but also tlteir r-gsponsibilil)'to.elrstrle that no uirscrupulous trader usulll.s rights of otirer parties ol"lltillllitlell' stops other par-ties involved in this field." It is sLrbrrrjttetl tlrat tlrc I ilteutiol of the Petitionels is "not to stall the gtanL ol'palellts lirtt [r.r 11'1' and elsnre that tto wrolgful patents ale grpnled to rtttscrttptlltltts [t'atlcts i1 the interest of the public": It is subrnittecl that a. ;ra.terrt is a cotttl:rlctc Irrolopolistic right and shor.rld be grantecl only aftet'cltre'cblrsitlcraliorr. It is for this reason that the legislature has built iu vat'ions sa.lcgLral'tls lilic pre-Fant opposition, post-gtant opilosition, i-errocAtiolts, cottltl.ct-clitjttt l'crr revocations a.nd defences bf rerrocat'iou iu a sr.rit lirr inli'irrgertrettt. lt is stated that the rvorcls of the statute are clear ancl till strclt tittrc; [lrc grilrlI of the pateut is macle knorur by tlre public.atiou irr the ol'licial gaz;etlc'. iI cannot be said tc have been grantecl in ia.w. It is also poitrtecl t;trt tlrat llrc interpretation canvassed by co,.nseI for respondent ]rlo.5 '"r'ils ct.)tltt'3t'Y 1,, the currelt practice of the Controller's office and rvouJd leecl to :r g,r"ea{ v/.p.(C) Nos. 35i.4 3577,54.22, 5a2i of 2007 & 70ggg, 70400 Bt lO'tSO oI Zoos B, 1020 of )-0.ro poge 1.3 ol 40 \A, deal of avoiclable coitfusion. IWrit . Fetition (C) petitiortsl 103gg, 1A400. ancl 10450 Cf 20rg 12"'t sef o[' 1VO.t I 22. Therelevant facts ate that La.tit Mahaja-u Responclent l\o' I irr all tltc above writ petitions filecl three patent applications. lor grattrt ol'patcrrls being Applicatioir Nos. 16BBlDeIl200l , 1689lDell2001 ot'r t{tr' AugLrst 200i. In Application No. 1688 of 2007, the inveution rela.tetl {o a tlevice for analysilg the presence of Dengue IgG antibodies ilr htrlllall sel'tllll and lrlasura. Application No..1689 of 2007 relatecl'to tlte invctttitlrl ttl-it kit for arialysing, the presence of dengue IgM antiboclies ilr tl:e ltttrrtatt senun or plasrna. Lalit Mahajan also filed two othei' applicrtiorrs bcirrg j41Del2005 and lSnJtZO05 ou l2trtJamrary 2005 if relaliorr to a Prttt N4alaria Stirc a1d a Tetra Malalia Stix respectively Lor testilrg ol'tttrtlaria. 23.LaIitfufahajan's Airplication No. 16BB/Deli2007 r,vas publislred irr tlre' Jouinal on 31't August ZOtOl.. The patent l,vas gl-autecl and ivas ltlso sealccl. o1 16tl'October 2008. Apre-g1ant oi:positiorl \/as filecl by thc pclitiorrcr' Zephyr Biomedicals ('Zephyl'; on 12tr' Dec;etnber 2008. 'l'hc pl'c-grarrt opposition was rejectecl on 4tl'March 2009. Thjs orcler r,vas cltltllerrgetl l11' Zephyrin Writ Petition (C) No. I03gg of 2Q09 - Ztl. LalitMahajan's Applica.don No. 1689/Del l2O01' rvas ptrbli:;lrcd orr'?'r' Septernber 2007. The patent rvas grantecl ancl sealecl on l(rtl' ()ctobcr 2008. The.pre-gtant oppositiolt \4/as filect by'Zephyl sn l'2ti' l-)e,;ettrbct' 2008. It was rejected on 4d'March 2009. This ordel \ryas cirallengetl by IA/.P.(C) Nos. 3s76, s574s422, 5423 of 2OO7 & 7I3gs, 7040t0 & 70450 of 200t - .::;:"r:rt:;:, Y31 ' Zephyr in Writ Petition (C) No. 10400 of 2009 .. 25 . LaIj.t Mahaj an' s Applicatiorr s No. 7 4/D el l20 0 5 ancl l 5 l D0 l/;10 0 5 \^/cre prLblished on 2t'd June 2006. The paLeut was glau.tecl. a.ltcl serll,ltl ott l()'l' October 2008. The pre-graiit oppositiol was filecl b), Zephyr ott Zlltr' bTovember 2008.It waq rejectecl by the Controllet'on [(rrl' Mat'clr 2009. 'rhis order was challengecL by zephl'r by filing \Mrit Petiiiorr ((l) No' 10450 of2009 Swhndssions in tlre 2"d Set o.f trtetitiorts (lt1t Zephyt) 26. The argnments aclvancecl by ffi-. Sa.r4eev'I(utnar 'I'iwirri" 1.t,,,'',c,1 'counsel appearing for Zepilr