Dr.(Miss) Snehlata C.Gupte v. UOI & Ors

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' 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. o o, 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? ,,/ .,. ../'

¶2To be refered to the reporter or not? r'/'

¶3Whether 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 ' )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)

¶3J..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' "

¶4Spal 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".

¶6It 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.

¶7On 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

¶9It 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.

¶1001 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

¶11Writ 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

¶12The 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.

¶13Pate'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.

¶15Ms. 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"

¶16Referring 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'

¶19Learned 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. .: .

¶20It 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

¶22Therelevant 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 & 1020 (;f 20'10 Page L4 ol 40 Zephyr in Writ Petition (C) No 10400 of 20.09' ..

¶25L,ali.tl.v4ahalan's'Applications No. 74lD e1/7005 and 15/Dell2005 \^/ere ' .-.1 pnblished oq 2"d Jr1ne. 2006.. The patent was gtautecl ancl seal,:tl olt l(rtr' October 2008. The pre-grairt opposition was filecl b)' Z'elrlr)'t' tl.tt 2[lil' Novernber 2008. It w1q rejectecl by the Controller on l(r"' Marclt 2009. Tlris order was .challe'ged bV Zephyr by fili1g \Mrit Petitiorr ((l) No. 104s0 of2009 Subndssions i.n tlrc 2"d Set of pefi{iorts (by Zeltlqtr)

¶26The arguments aclvanced by ffi-. Sa.njeev'Kunrar 'liinu,,,'i. loaLttetl 'counsel appealiug for Zephyr aga.inst the orclers of tlre (..-'olttrollcr' rqbctilg its pre-grant application on the grouncl of Unritatiott u'el'e nrol'o or less sirnilar to the argurnents aclvauced by cotursel appearirrg, lctr Dr'. Snehla.ta Grrpte a1d Dr. Girish Rindani in relation Lo the paterrts 1;r'altecl ,1o J. I\4itra & Co. 21 .Inresisting the petitions, it was submitted by,Mr. Matrincler Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for Lalit Mahajalt tltat irllor' tlro. Amendment to the Act in 2005, the tiure periocl lor filing a pl'c-gratlt oppositiotl may. have been reinoved but a reasonabld irrterpretatiorr lla.s lo be given to the amended Section.25 keeping in view tlte corrtcxt. l-l<; places emphasis on the words "nllless the cotttext otherwisc t'ctlttires" occtrning in the openiirg portion of Sectiort2 (1) of the Act arrcl srrbtnits tliat the locus to challenge'a patent that has been gtau.ted gets rcsttictccf ttt w.p.(c) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 10450 of 2009 & L020 of 2.01.0 . pnge JS of 40 a person ilterested. H" r.rb*ttecl that consiclerirlg tJra.t tlrc gl'ilrtt of ir patelt is a recognition. of the creative work of the invetlter, alttl hlrs lo ^ j' --'--,atiou procedttre tltiough sevoral sla{los paps a tarly rrgolous exaillllla.tlolL ploucutrru which by its very lature is time consnmittg, a. r'casoltablc llcriOcl as opposed. to air indefinite open-enclecl periocl.has to be givetr lbr the lilirrg of a pre-grant opposition, which is by any person ' iA llfi Maninder Singh pourted out that tlte scltente ol' tlre Act u,t,, ,l,. RuJes inclicated,that the serrerd.l acts leadiug to Lhe glan( ol-tho pirtertl .: 'certificate were 1.o be perfonned within specific ti.lre perioctr. it.l.i-r'irrg ,[o Rule i4 (2) of the Rules he submjtted that a patent cerl"if icirte is to bc .ordilarily isstiecl within seveli days fi-oru the date of grzrnt o1';tilterrI ttttcler' . Secticn .l3..tIncler Rlle'24, Lhe period for wlrich an applicatiorr lirr' lratcrrt :' shall not ordinarily be open'to public under Section 1 l A( l) rihzrll bc llt pronths from the date of filing of application or lire date o{'pricx'itv c(' T , an airplication, whichever is earlier. In terms of Rtrle 24-I] (lXi) a t'ecltlcsi l'or examination rurder Section 118 of the Act is nracle within 4[J lrrorrllrs fi-om the date of priority of'thc application or.ft.otn the date uI-lilittg ol' . tlre application whichever is earUer. Under Rule 24-8(2) (i), thc ;lcriod within whiih the Controller shall refer the application ancl lipeci(icatiorr and, other documents to the Examiuer where suclt l'ctlttesl lirr' examiuation has.been made shall ordiuarily be rryithin otte ntorrth iLorn tlie date of its publicatiorl ,or r,vithin. oue morrtlr 'fi-ortr Llre tlerte o{' examinafioir,. vyhichever is later. Under Rule 24-B(2Xii), tlte Lixittttilrct' sbouLd ordinarily. suburit the report withirr one lnonth btrt rrol cxcer:clirrg V\.P.(C) Nos.3515, 35L7,5422, 5423 e'f 2007 & L0399, '10400 & 10450 af 2009 & 7020 of 20L0 Paae 16 of 40 \,f I ue three n.onths fiom the clate of reference aud thereafter thc Colrttollcr' slrould, in accordalce witJi Rule .24-B (2xiii), dispose ol' tlrtr repor'l wiLhin oue month .of its re.ceipt. Uncler Rtrle. 24-B (3)' tlro. lirs;t exarnination'report.is sent to the applicant within six tltorltlt.s ll'tlrrl tlrc r o, p,ibli"atiort rvhichever is latcr antl date Of request fOr exattrtuatiOtt rvlttclterter ts lflt' nnder Rgle 24-B(4), the time for: putting an application ilt tlrclet' (or g|arrI r.urcler Section 21 sirall be tvrehre months.fi-om the ciate on u'hic:[r thc I'irst' sta.tem.ent of objeqtion is jssued io. the applicant to contply \^/itll tlrc requirernents. It is submittecl iha.t given the specilicd lirrtc lirrrits prescribed at the stage of scmtiny of the appl.icatious lor gratrl o('Patcrrl 'a1d given the fact that the grant of a patent t'elates.bacl< to tlre tlirte tttr which tlre application is filed, the ;ratentee hctttally loses rttttclt ol'this .lleriod fbi working the palent. Given the fact that arr applicatiorl firr' grant'of patent <;an get,published only after a perioel ol'ltt rttottllts ittttl .that the Controller cannot talie utrr the applibation fbr exattrhtaliorr [iI"a period of six months afler its publication, it is ,r.""rrur)' t,, ,'ea,l iil .reasonable time lirnit for filiug a pre-glant opposition. ReJ'brettce is Itritdc: to the decisjons in'Swiit Sirtgh trfatrnv. {Jni.ott o.f lttdi.a (1991) 2 ^gC(' 87 atd Directorute of Enforcenterfi.v. Deepnlc Afaltaiu.rt,ttltr( Ig94 ^5(' 177s. Wrir Perition G) No. 1020 qf 2MA :

¶29The petitioner: Tibotec Pharmaceuticals ('Tibotec') llloc! its , ', application for grant,of pateut on [1'l''Juub 2004 lor an inveltti<ln titlcd 'Cornbiiration of C]'tochorne Paso Depeirclemt Prcltea.se luhitlittrrs". 'l'Itc W.P.(C) Nas.3516, 357.7,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 1.0399, 1.0400 & 10450 of 2009 & 1.020 rtf 20L0 ' t)oge 17 o.[ 40 Y2, first examina.tion report was issued on 14tl'March 2007. 'l-lie apPlicirtiori was ptrblished on 30il'Novenrber 2001 in terms of Sectiorr llA o{'llrc t' Act. After consiilering the response of th'e Peti[joner ilt reply. to tlte lirst exami'atio1'report, the Controller issued a letter to.tlte Pe[itiorre[ ott 2[lrl' a, i\zfarch 2008 to thb following.effect' i " (cWnirr ol'.n.re Arrtrl ' "Yo'ur above Applicaiion for pa'tent i1 orcler ior gta1t. However, the Patelt Certificate . will be issued only a'fter prcicessing of lhe , Application under Section 11(a) l'si'c ll'41 itnd cornpletion of the statutory li[rit ancl' disposal ol' pre-glantopposition,ifany,underSectiorr25(l)oI the Act'"'

¶30The petitiouer's case is that on 30tl'May /Qgg, tlte rttattclittorl' pcriod. of six mo[ths in terms of Rule 55(1 A) of th6 ltules and thc llt|cre conclitions in flre aforementionecl letter stood sa.tisfied. Accorclirtg, to.llrq petitioner, the patent was deernecl to have beetr grantecl ll'otn,stlclt da.le. . ' ?L On 26t1, Jule 2008; Cipla Ltd. filecl a pre-graut re;trescrrl,atiort/ opposition. This was notified to the PetitiOner fi'otr the lfellri O['fit:e o{' " 'the Corrt1oller. The petitioner, by its letter dalecl 2l*tOctr-rbcr 2008' poilted ont to the Controller that the'pre-grarrt oppositiorr \'\'ils tirrrc-balred. The petition.er also filed an interlocutorlr petition clatecl l0tr' No.ve'rber 2008 prayirig for issuance of a patent.certificate irl its lav0trr' ard for.rejecting the opposition fi|ed by Cipla. I-tcl. 'l'hereafler tlre ' petitioner also filed an afficlavit of evidence on 7!h .Iattuat'y 2001) ol'orre Professor David Johll Back' 7,5422, 542'J of 2007 & L0g99, 1'0400 & 104'50 of 200e & L020 ol2070 Poge 18 of 40 P..(c) Nos i576, i.57 , 9v' 3?. ThePetitio*er a'd cipla LtcJ. were hea'd by the Assjsttrnt corlL*;ller' of Patents on gtll Jan'ar-y'2009 and written s'bnrissiotls \^/el'e liletl lty tlrern on 27Lt' March 20Og. By an ordet clated 30'l' March 2()09' tlre ^llo,- olln."rarl tlre Assistant Contr-oller allowed the pre-gtant opposl Petitionerthe gralt of the patelt oir the groutld ol'laol< of il:r'errtivc step' 'Tlre Controller's order dated 30tl' N'{arch 200g.ltas been c'ltullerrged bv Tibotec iir this petition. A.niong the grounds r'aised in this petitiorr is llrirt I' tle pre-glant opposition filed after 30tl'May 2008 was uot r.aiirl"airra'ble' SutlndssionsofCoutlselinTibotec'spetiti'ott .

¶33Mr, Rajiv Nayyar, learned Senior: connsel appeal iltg I'br thc l)cl itiorrcr . Tibotec submitted that there was a cJistiirctiou beLu,ebu the 'isstiattc'e' ol'll . patent certificate.under Rule l4 andthe 'grant' of patent.fr:r the ptrtll(-rsos of Sectio'.431. He also referred to the impugnecl.orcler Passccl tr1'.11]" Assistant Contrclier where it \4/as' observed tha.t ""thel'c u'alj ll() .: 4r\r\o r^ t'l^^ l^. rmpe4irnent on 30tl'Ma,v 2008 to the issuance oJ'thellartent cor'lilic:ate arrtl. clays ol'30'l' N4a1' 2008 as.the application was published ou 30'l'Novelnbbr 20()7 arttl s;ix rnonths period was over o.n 30tl'May 2008". It u'zrs fur-ther tlbscl'r'ecl ilt . ot' . the irnplgned orcler that the gr,ant of patent by the CorrLl'oller trncl lhc lqtteut iSSuattce of l'etters of patent have taken.lllore tinre tltirrr it could have taken orclilari\' bgt that did not preclu'cle t'tre lilirtg o{'a D|c-g1ant opposition-It is a.cc,orclingly sLibmiLtecl ihat Ibr itll Piactioal rf the Patelrt shoulrl lrc ']()tl' Milv pllqloses the"effective date of glant r 2008 or the ver]/ ne'xt day thereafter' W.p-(c) Noi. i576, 3577,5422, 542i of 2007 & 103gg, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 7020 <tf 2070 psge L9 of 40 uq . Il

¶34IW. Malurnclar, lealned counsei appearing for.Cipla Ltcl' strblrrittcd ' that at the stage of filing of the application and its exa.rnrilaiit,n irr irriliill phhse by the Cotrtroller, there l^/as no third party. 'Itre Controlle[ ar:ts as a..fact findilg authority. Sectiou 3. of the Act sets orrt the gt'otrnclr; lirr' refhsal. If the patent is refused, the orcler is'telatablc to Sectiorr l5 ol'llrc Act. The Controller could ask for an anendtnettt to lje tnadc orrelt al tltttt stage. T5e intimation that the patent is in orcler is not by itsell'a grattt ttl'' patent. This'is an order relatable.Lo Section 15 of the Act' Ar:cotclirlg trl ,lrinr, tile stage of Sectio n 43 for grant of patent is rea.oltecl orrly trllcr' conrpletion of the processes envisaged by Section l5 cf the Act' l'lrrdcr' Section.45, the date of patent is aheady a fixecl clat'e since ultcler Sectir-rlt 45 (l)'ievery patent shall be.datecl as of the clate.on whiclt the aPPlicirtiott for patent was filed". It is this date that is enterecl in tlre ltcgistcr'. I'lc poilteil out that under Rule B0 to lceep a patent iu fot'ce, the reurewal lbes specifie.d i1 the First Schedule shall bg pay2.fle at the exllirit(ittrr o['lhc sec.old )rear fi-om the date of the patent anci the periocl lbr 1ia1'rrrcrtt o1' renewal fees ma1, be exten.Jed up to six montlts. So the clalc ol'pitterrt" becones critical for the payruent of renewal f-ees, Whei'e an allplicarif ha5 not paid renernral fees, it t:reans that b.e is aware that he hits ttol beett granted a patent.

¶35IVII-. Majurn.ciar poirrted.out that Under Rule 122, tbe Clorttt'uller catr corect clerical errors. Likeu,ise, under Section t,l.O tlr" Colltlrrller c'alt call lbr infornra.tiou, regarding the conurlercial working'ttl' tltcr paterlt lvittrin two months frorn the date of such n.otice. Notu,ithsl:rrtr-lirrg tl.ris" w.P.(cl N.os. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 8' 70999,7040p & 70450 of 2009 & 7020 ttf 2070 ' ' P(tge 20 o! 10 *r nnder Section 146(2) evely patent holcler Jras to ftrrnislr .s{atclirerrts irr such manner aud form ancl rn rrot less tJtan six ntotttJts ils llli-1.)/ lte prescribecl as to the extent tcj which the pa.tentecl itrvetttitrtl hils lrccrt worked o1 a. cornlrercial icale in India. If no such reports at'c Jllcd, thctr it is pla.irr that no patent has been grantecl. The rvorking ol'tlre Palcrrt arises oul1r y,fu.re it is grairted. Mr. Mqutndar fbinted otrt tlrirt ttlttlcr .ntrt" 130 an application for revierv of the Controllet''s ot'([crt' lr;rs lo bc ma.de within ofle month fi'orn the date of courttrutricatiorr oI lhc tlscisiorr to the applicant

¶36It is subrnitted by i\zh. ltrlaju.mdar tha.t in the instant case [ltet.c. wlti no lrresumption of gru.tr of patent"ouly on ttre basis of the.letter clirtecl 28tl' March 2008 as it vras only an informal intimation. to the-Petitiolrer-r,r,hic.h rvas in fact not requiied to be made in law. It is only as a. lorrg s(arrclirrg practice that the Controller has been issuing suclt conlttuttir:atirlrtsi [rtrl there'is no guarantee that patent would be grantecl onl1, on accor.rnt ul'. snch cornmunication. Secondly, without the cornpletion o['tlre pruccdrtt'c , envisaged unde[ Section 25(1) and Sectioir 1lA, tjreie can l.re rro gt'arrt o(' a.patent. It sis subrnitted that for the purposes of the Act "tlte clato ol-grant of the patent is the clal'e on which the Resporrclcnt aullroritics;tirss 'the order:of glant. It is only after such an order is pa.ssecl, tltal n patelrt is tr-eated as granted rlo ,nutt.t when the certiiicate oi' gtaut ili issuetl or' r,vhen the grant is"recorded or..notified." It is a.ccordingl1, s.u[rrrritlerl llrat as on the clate of tlie filing of pre-glant.oppositiou, no grau( ol'piitcnt hrrtl taken place as erivisaged by the Act. " w.P.(c) uoi. ssto. i577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70399,'70400 & 70450 of 2009 8, L020 of 201.0 page 21. of 40 fl ,

¶37The rryritpetition is also resistecl ou tlte grotrtlr1"of'laohes. lt is slatcil that the Petitioner; chose to c1rallenge the otder clatect 30th March 2001) only e11 22"d Jannary 2010. Reliance is.placecl ott the juclgrnelrt ol"lhe Suprente CourL in Stute af Il[.P. v. Nundlal .faistrtnl. (1986) 'l SCC 566' 144rcn can. a patent be sttid.to be grunted? 3B..The bommon qriestion tb.a.t arises in all thesg petitions is vvlt.ctt cnrr it be said that a patent has been ganted? Section 2 (1) of the Act t4rcrrs with the r.rards "unless the context othervrise require.s".'['lris lras ltl be / rea.clwith section 2(1) (m) whiclr defines a'pa.teltt'as "1 palerrt (br arrl'' iurrention granted under this Act". The date of glant o.l'petteli{ i:r clitic;lrl' . fcr cietermirring the tirne within'which a pre-gl-airt opltositiorr l.ras lr.r bc fiied in terms of Section25(1) of the Act. After the aurenclrttcttl lo thc . Act ancl inparticular to Section 25 (1) with effuo[ fi-orn l'(.lurtuitt't, 2(X)-5, a significant change has been brought in this regarrcl. l)t'ior to it$ amendinent, uncler section 25(1) the pre-grant opposition hacl to !rer filotl : rvithin fonr months fi-orn the dale of advertiserrent of thc lccelttitlloc t'l-the corrplete specification."This a.rlvertiseurent in ihe trfllciirl gazeLtc ol'. the acceptance of cornpiete spebilication was uncler Secrtiorr 2.1 ol' tlre Act, prior to its amendment. A fi.rrther nraxinitnlt period ol'ol.tc ttttl.tttlt could be allowed by the Coritroller for makirig the pre-grairt oppo5ililrrr Such prc-grant opposilion coulcl be miLde only bi, a'"perscirt inlerestecl'". '

39.. Tire significairt c,liange brouglrt about by the anrenclrrrent t<i ,\c':r:tiutt 25 in 2005 is that Lhe 1:rg-grant 'representation' (or ollllositiorr) llririrrst w.p.(c) t)tos. 3515, 3s17,s422, SnZt iTZOOZ * "rgn, 'bnOO A IO+SO o7 2009 & 1020 oI20Lt) . ! Page 22 af ,f/1. : tbe grant oi pa.te't can.be nade by "any peLsor". Tlie ptrblicirtiori ol'tlrc complete specificatiol now takes place undet' Section llA of lhe Ac't Uilcle.r Rule 24 a.f the patelt Rules 2003 the publicatiolt ltappens' ttot garlier than 18'rnouths fi-oin the date of filing of tire applicatiott ot'tltc . clate of priority of the apphcdLtiol, whichever is earfier'.

¶40T'here *. rp".ific'time limits for the stepS to be tal<ert llrr tlre -r : acceptance of the complete .specificatiol lor plblicatiorl b1r tlrc Controller. This is followecl by u teqr-rest tnade b)' the applica't lirr' take place withlr the specified tille liurjt as prescribed irr lltrle 2{-lt.ol' t1e Rules. Witholt gourg into the specifib details ol. tlris tinlc lleli<lcl, l-crr the purposes of the present petitions it is sufficient to rlote liral whcre it is ilteldbd that there shc,gld be a specific tirrre limit within rryhich a step ltas to be taken either by the applica.nt for the glarrt o1' pa.tert[ or [r1'' [l1a; i Controller thbn such tirne limit is clear-ly iuclicated in the Act irrrcl the Rule.s,

¶41There is another provision which is relevatrt in this context. [Jlrclcr Rlle 55(1-A),.no patent shall be grarited before the expiry ol'a lreriotl oi . six months fi'orn the date of publicatir.ln of the applicatiorr rtttdct' Siectio;r 11A' As LL result, at least for a period of 2 1'sar's after' filirrg of'thc patent, no pateut cau be grrintecJ. lt is Lltlring tlris lreriocl that the steps for examinatioit=of the patent itr'ternts ol'licctiorr I l' \A/.P.(CJ Nos. 3576, 3577,5422,. 5423 of 2007 & 703gg, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 7020 oJ 2010 pogle 23 ctf 4O ,f3' and thereafter the consicleration by the Controller of thc t'eltort ol' tlre Exa.rnirier rurcler Section 14 foltowecl b/ atttencltnettts, i{' rilry' ltrc itll gldertaken. It is cllring this tinre a.lso that the lrre-graltt gppostllgtt rs expected to be filed.

¶42The faot of the acceptance of the cornplete speeificatiott, ali irrclicirtctl by the applicant for grant of a patent, having' beert act:e;rtccl lor publication is 'eviclent fi-om the aclvertisement of sLrcJt spectficatioll ilr tlrc Patents .Tournal in terms of S""tion 11A of tlre'Act. 'l'lrerel0re, ilrl), person who is seekilg to object to the grant of the patelrt is cxPer;terl'to [<eeptlretrackofpublicationofsuclrcontpletespecihca,tiorr..|'|tisC'tltrl.t .has been infbnnecl that publication also takes place on tlte rvebsitc, irr acldition to being published in the Journal.

¶43There is a fi.rrther time restrictiol. Uncler Rule Zt[, the llcl'iocl ltir' wfuich an application for patent "'shall not ordiuarily be operr to lrtrtrlic under sub-sectioq (1) of Section t i-n shall be 1B ;nontlrs fl'oru tlre tlalc .of filing of the application or the clate of the priolity of the aplllictrtiorr. whichever is earlier." In effect, therefore, it will. not be possiblr: firr. a petson seeking.to object to the grant of a pateut to ntake 're1ll'csctttatiott' earlier than a period of 18 months after the date of the lllitrg ol'strc'lr appiication.. 'In any eVent since in tertns of Rule 55(1-A) utl lratettl c'ittt l-rc : granted before the expiry of a period of six months fi'otn the tlatc ol-publication ancl the'Controller is expectecl to publish.the applicittiort said pelio<|, tltct'c is at W.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422 5423 of 2007 & 703gg, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 &'1020 al20L0 poge 24 of 40 least a .period of six rnontirs thereafter for the opposer lo lile. the representa.tion. .44. Given ihe above scheme, the anrenclrnent in 2005 to Section 2-5 ol'(lrc Act r.vas apparently rna,Jg r,vith a vierry to extending the Lirrre pcrio<l rryitllirr whiih all cpposition to the grant of palent hacl to be ntacle. lJriclel tlre pre-amendecl Secti on25,.the persons interest",l i,t opposing tlre g,ratrrt ol' pal'ent hacl to necessarily file such opposition lvithin Ibtrr ttttttttlts, il period extendable only by one month, whei'eas rmdel' thc attterttlccl Section 25 that period is clearly extended ai least up to six rnouths.

¶45Given tlre practical.aspect of the rnatter. no.patent is usualll, grarttecl irnrnediatell, en tlie expiry of six rnonths fiorn the date of pLrblioatiolr ol' tlre applica.tion. It is usna.lly a rnrch longer period. 'l'hc arncttrltttertl tu Section 25 cleuly, therefur:e, enlarges the tinre l'or filirrg o[ a 1r'c-grarr[ opposltloll.

¶46The thrust of the Act is thaL the ruel-e grapt of pa.tent cloes rrot ensur"c its vaiiditl'. This is plain fron: Section 13(4) of lhe Act. ljr,err the grtrrrt of a pateiit does not ensure tirat there will bc no further clra licrrg,e. [Jricler: Section ZS 1Z1of the Ac.t,againstthe gr.antof apateut and tlre re.icctiorr ' of a pre-gra.ut oppositiorl, a post-gragt opposition can be 'liled [i-J, ittt], persolt interested .before the Intellectuai Propeity Appcllatc I-loiu'd

(IPAB)- Aur application'for revccation can [:e filecl before the f PAl] b-t' any peison. inte.r'estecl Lurtler Section 64 of the Act. tf tlie patcrrt lrolt[:r'. tAt.P,(c) f,los. 35L6, 35J.7,5422, 5423 ol 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 70450 of 2C09 & 7020,of 20J.0 fl , puge. 25 ol 4(t files a suit for infiiirgement the Defendant in sucli a suit calt [l-y counter claim cliallenge the valiclity of graut of pa.tent (Sectiorr with section 64 of the Act)., l,ya.y el',, 107 r'catl

¶47The scheme of the Patents Act, therefore, is suclt that llrot'c arc serretal hurdles to cross before the gtalt of a paf'ent certt bc saicl lo be fi1.al. There are two other provisious tha.t require to be trotic':cl' t-lrrtlcr' . Section 53, tern of every pa.tent "shall be20 years fronr the daLe ol"l'iling of .the application for the patent". Under Section 4.5 "errerJr Patcrrt shrrll be dated as of the clatp on which the application for paterrt witri tl.lccl-'. Sinc.e this clate cannot possibly be, changed, a pateni holcler lltllY s111[ 1", not bbing able to work the. patent cluriug the tjine w'h'en it tcrttititrs chalienged, or its grairi is sta1,,3d or rvltetr the patent h<ildol' is ttt.tt .colfident to exploit it comlnercialty till all the'challenges to its valiclif)' d' . ,1 : -1,-^ -]--- ^l^^^ ^llr.j are ov6rooilre. Since there is already.a loss of tirne flor the lratetr{ ltolcler' il.tire above processes, the time periocl envisagecl b)i Sectiorr 2-5( | ) ol'lirc 'Act for fililg of a pre-gl'ant opposition canuot pbssilrll, llc libera'lly construed, notwithstaldilg tha.t there is 1lo specilio titlre pcriotl m.entioned therejn. The onter lirnit is tire date ort u,hich thc Pirterrt is \ granted. 48 4 careful look at Sectjon 43 of the Act shows that in tlre l ir"st Placc att airplication for.patent has tc be found "to be in orclel lol gralrt".'l"lris iirch.rdes the peribcl duing which cornplete specification rs acc.cptetl lirr' publication-in tenns of Section 1[A followecl by tlte exatrtjrrir{iorr ol'tlre l-w.P.(c) Nos.' 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 1.0ggg, 10400 & 70450'of 200g a rczo ol20L0 \ Page 26 of 4o ,rrf s{, patent which tal<es place within the time-fi-ame set. ottt lrl lttrle Ztl-l] ttl' the Rules. ,A refusal at that stage will be governed b)' Sectrorr 15. o'l-tlre Act. If the patent is 1ot refusecl at that stage ancl uo 1:re-gt'arrI o;lPOs;itiorr has been filed, the patent proceeds for registration'

49., Whele . any pre-grant oppositiol is filecl in tlre lbrtrr oI a represeirtation underl Sectiou 25(1.) of the Act, thetr'it has to be oxtttttirrocJ following the proceclue otrtlinecl in Rule 55 ( l) 'the rcllres;crrt,'ti,.1,, should include a statement of evideuce and a request lbr ltcaling. [J rrclcr' Rule 55 (2),the Coltroller is to consicler snch t-epreseutatiolr "'ortly l'r'ltctt a request for examination of an appJication has beeit filecl". A trtltice rs .* givel to the'appUcant "for'grant oipatent" wltere tlte CclrrLrollcr {brrrrs lrrr opinton, upoll consiclering the pre-grant oppositron, iltat l,lre palellt shr.llltl be reftised or amended. This happens nnder Rule 55 (3). 'I'lro a;llrliclrrt for grant of patent then responcls to the notice by fiUng his statcnrerrt ol' evjdence under Rule 55(4) within tluee nronths .fi'otr-r the clate o1' tlrc notice' Urider Rule 55 (5), the Controller mal/' oll cotlsicierirtiorr o{'thc staternent and evid.ence filed by the applicant, eitlter reltrse to gi'atrt -a patent or require the cornplete specification to be atnetrtled belbte tlre patent is granted.

¶50Then wo have Rule 55 (6) which is reliecl rqtoir extensivcly bv ths learned counsel for the parties and which rea.ds a.s urdet: "55(6) Afler corisiclering ,n. repteselttatiou ,n,,<'l submission made during the hearing if so tequestecl, . dre Controller shall proceed ftirtlier sirltrita.neotrsllr vt/.P.(c) Nos. 3576,35L7,5422, 5423 of'2007 & 10399, 10400 & 10450'of.2009 & 10?0 of 2010 Puge 27 rtf 40 rlr) /, either rejecting the representatiolt and grurti[g thc patent or accepting the representation ancl reltsilrg the grant of patent on that applicatiorr, orclittarily witlrtn onq lnontli fion the cotnpletion of abovc proceeclinlgs." '\

51.It is plain, therefore,.that once the'fre-grant oppo.sition is cleciclccl, tlre Coniroiler sirnultanebusly proceecls to either reject sucli rept'csettta(iott and grant the patent or acbept the representation.anil t'efLrse tlte ltaletrt. The language of Rr.rle 55 (6) leaves ne rnanner oI'doubt that llte.se (\,r,rL - .a.<;tions i.e. the consideration of tlre representatioir and the (ilul cler.risiorr on the application for grant of paLent take place siurultfureougl1,. ' .52. k is possible that tli.ere zue more than one representatious [l1, vvn1, 1v1' . pre-gralt opposition. Ideall1r, the Controller will buncl, therrr togotlrcr', final opiuion on caoh oItlrcrrr it.s lhr' as practicable, on the sArne. clate. It is like a court hearing a batr;h'ol- . petitions seeking sirnilar relief. It is possible that e\/elt aller tlre lrea.rirrg on oile bunch of pre-grant oppositions has conclucted ancl. rircler' lralr bccrr . . reselved thereon, ailother pre-grant opposition ol a set of oppositiotrs is ' fileci pr-ior to the plonourlcernent'by the Controller o1'tbe clecisiun tln Ihc firsL set of pre-grant oppositions. Then the scheme of the Act rerlLrire.s lhe Controller to deal .with such subsequently filecl pre-graut ollpositions as lvell. However, once a final decision is pronounced orr tlre llre-gr-irrrt oppositious, the Conholler shoulci, consisterrt rryitli tlie requirentcrrt ol' Rule 55 (6) sitnultareou.siy pronoutlce the clecision oli the a;rpli,.:a(ir.rr lirr I' w-P-(c) Nos. 3576, 3577,s4.22, 542i.of 20'07 & 10igg, 10400 & 10450 of 2009 A nZO o.f 20iA pdge 28 of 40 f,$, grant of patelt The Controller should clearly state, sitntrltarloctrsly, tlrrtI the application is forurd iu order and that tlre patent is beirrg gratllccl.

¶53Reverling to Sebtion 43 (1), the'language usecl is that "a lratr:rll shall be granted as'expectitiously as possible-" Tlier'"forl" the paterrt lrtrs lo lre granted once.it is found that either.the application ltas uot becrl relilsecl irr tenns of Secticn zs(L)read u,ith Rule 55 (6) or it.has not becrt loLrrrcl itr contiavention of any pfovision of the AcL. In otlter urolcls, irt tlris sl.ag,c the Controller is not expected to delay the pronoutcenreltt ol'{lre firrtrl decision. The thrust of Sectio.u 43' (L) ancl ll.ule 55 (6) is thrrt ol' expeditious decision making by the Controller. Sectiotr 43 ( l) irrclioatcs that the "patent shall be grauted.....with the seal o1'the patetrt of[lce attcl ' tire date otr which the patent is granted shall be ertlered.in thc l{cgister'". Wren read continuousllr, the language of Section 43 (l) cloes a;11;cat'to indieate tirat jt is the decisjon talceri by the Controller on llle r,r,lticlt is (lrc determining event for ascertaining 'the.date of grant ol'patetrt.' 'l'lrc: sea.ling of the pa.tent and' the entering of , the paLtert iu tlrc llegistcr' obviousll, follows the act of the Controllcr passiug atr orcler to iJic "t',"", that the patent has been granted. In other words, ihe sealing ol'llre pirtcrrl and the entering of the patent in the Re.gister are, given tlte la.rrgrragQ ol' Section. 43 (l) of tlie Act, iutencled to be rninistelial acts evidettcittg tlre grant of pateut, Wlr.ich is at a stage antgrior to those ninisterji,l n"ts. .

¶54Section j (2) t'hat Ihe paient has talks of the publishiug by tlre. Contloller ol"'(he fiir:l beeir granted.". The larrguage of Sectiorr 43 (2) is ltlitin W.P-(c) Nos. 3976,3577,s422, 5423 af 2007 & 7C399, i0400 & 70450 .of 2009 & 7020 of 2010 ' poge 7.9 of 4O {Jt 'fhe act of publication clearly follorvs the grant of'patent. Pcr liu"cc tlrc grant of patelt is alterior to the publication alcl has to ledcssiiril)' be itt it poilt earlier to the publication. It is, therefore,'not' possiblc. to atll'oc with thd subrnissions rnade on behalf of the pre-gr-ant opposel's in tlrc present batch ,of gases that the patent ca6ot'be saicl.to have beoll grarrtecl till tlris fact is.publiihed in the official gazette. Giverr tlral tlre ilterpreta.tion of the provision has to be con[extttal, this C]or,rrt holtls lhal the date of grant of patent is the date on which the Controller passes irrr orcler to that effect on the file. This Court now proceeds to cleitl.r'r'ith thc' apprehended practical problems that the office of the Controllcr llral' Ihcc olt accoullt of tlie interpretatiorl placed by this Cotrrt bn Soctiort zlJ ol'tlro Frevior.ts awtouncenrctfi qf the da.te of pronouncentent o.f orrtcrs

¶55It was slbnitted that an order does .not becotue ell-ectivc till srrclr tirne it is comnunicated or rnade lcnowtt, becanse it thelr girrcs vttlttable lights to both the holcler of the pa.tent as well as any llersolr inlercstetl in opposing the grarit of patent. While it i, ,o,t"ct thirt the knorryleclgc o1'arr order granting a patent is irnportattt fi-orn ttr" poirrt of vierv o1' boLh tlre .erpplicant for grant of patent and the opposel', it is unlikeiy that tlrc applicant is uot present, either in person or"tlu-ough a l'ellresetltalttre, ott tlr.e clate on which 'an order is passed by the Contl'oller ot. the Assistarrt h Controller granting the patent. h order to obi,iate any cliflictrlly r.rrr thi.s score) this Couft w'oulcl" like to impress ripon th.e Colttrollcr tr.ntl tltc Assistant Controlleis to list cases for pronohnceureu[ of orclel's attcf lrtitltc W.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 7}3gg, 70400 & 7O450 of 2oog B' 7020 tt,f 20.to Page 30 tt[ 40 6l b, '. that fact k1ow1 by pnblishing a. ''canse list' o{' such oasos ttrttle| the : lieadilg "foL pronolncelnent of orders" tire pre\rious er4etrirrg both.orr the r,vebsite as well the notice Board of the Office of thb. Colrlrollcr,.itrs{ irs it 6appens i1 the Couits. Thereforb both the applicanL lor gt'attt ol';littettt tts rnrell as the pre-grant opposer woulcl be arryare of the. cletle Olt r,vl'riclr tlro orders are to. l,re prolounced. Since .it will be a.t least thc 1l'eviotrs e\/ellulg on wmch the list is available ou the rvebsjte atttl a.lsio lrlacecl tlrt .the rrotice boar-cl of the Office of the Contraller, tlteie will tre strlf icierr{ notice to such parties. Dealing witlt. Ileview Petitions.

56.Ifatl approach siinilat-to that followecl by courls iu trearilg cascs ittttl pqssing orders thereon is aclopted, much..of the probletrrs lai:ecl l.ry {her Coltrgller can te resolved.. For instance, once a final orcler is ;;r-ottttttttcctl ou a petition by the Court, then no ftirther applicatjons i.r,hctlter lirr' intervention, impleadrnent, oppositioil or any other reliel is etrterlaincd by such cotul. Thp bply exception is the filing of a revieiv zrlr;llic.ir{icrr tri, a parly to.tire case..LiJ<ewise, once a final order glanting ;ralerrl is; ltassctl by..the. Coirtroller on the f,I", there is uo question ol' thcrealicr errteftaining apre-galt otlppsition as it is ban'eci nttCer Section 25 (l) wjtli no cJj.scretion given to. the Controller. If a. Levievr, pctitit;rr is I'ilerl irnri.or Sectiori 11 0) (f1 read witlr Rrile 130, it rvill be by thosc wlro arc : partiis to the order of the Clntroller or the Assistant Clorrtrttllcr tlrt: review of wliich is sought. .[f srrch revierv'petition is enter-taii;ccl" irncl tlic orcler is. i'ecalJ.ecl rhen u. i, t rppetrs r,vitir.judicial oiders bJ, .,t,utts, tir,., W.P,(C) Nos, 3576, 351.7,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70egg, 10400 & L0450 oJ 2009 & 1020 of 201! . psge. 37 of 40 . e I, .: cJock is put back to the stage whete the original order-\^/as. l)assic{ atrtl 1ll legal consequences would flor,v. This by tlo mea.ijs a.JterS.tlie lbol tlral tlre . clate of the grant of patent is the clate on which the Controller or"Assis[irrrt Controller passes an order o1tile gialtilg the'paterrt. : . tVording of the Jinal' order grnntilry patent

¶57There is o1e other aspectwhichrequires to be erdvetted Ld. r'vhicth is .. tire wordilg of the order. granting patent. The Controller shoLllcl Pass tlrc " ottlY atier irll ' ' 'fiual order' sayirig that "the patent is hereby grarltecl . amendmerits have.been ca:riecl out to lhe satisfactiou ol'tlre Conirlllcl' b.y , rr :!'t 1re applicairt. The Contr-oller wiil, there[bre, not clisptlse. ol' tlic application'or pass a final order till sucJr tirne the Applicarrt ltas rto(' catried outlthe.amendments to the satisfaction of the Conttrrller. lt rvill ' have to be a tiure-bound orcler for that prypose. A lajhu'e tcl cttry ortl thc alnendlnent to the specification as clirectecl bl' the ContlbjJer or'/\ssislarrt Cpltroller within the tirne granted might tesult in lejection ol'thc palerrI u,hich contingelrcy is coveted rurcler S. 15'of the Act.. Flrrcirtg.th.e digitally signed orders..on tlre net

¶58In order to minimise any untlecessaly tiure-gap betweclr tlrc signing by the Controller or Assistant Controller of the fiuai ot'cler grarllirrg pa.tent an$ the 'publishing' of such orcler, it is clilectecl tltat ever1, lltlal ,1 , -ll- - rt-- A-. orcler gra.Utilg the pate't passed bl, the Co'troller ol-tlre Assistarrt Cotrtroller, as the case.lnay b*, should be digitally sigrrctl'by tlrc 'Controller or the Assistant Controller and placecl ofl tlie rryei:rsitcl ol'tlrc : W.P.(C) Nos. 1576, g517,5!22, 5423, of 2007 & 703gg, 10400 & 70450 al'2009 & L020 ol20I.0 ' poge !t2 of t1g 6L. Controller on the vet)r salne day without a.ny urtllecessal')/ clclir;'.'['hc procedrue i1 this regar-cl be strearulinecl foi being follou,ed r-rtrilol'r[l\r b)' "all thd officers and necessary instructions/pla.ctice directions shorrltl be issued by the Controller. Itiglrts of postgrmfi oltposers protected

¶59The rights qf such of those post-grant op1)osels who irre L)el-sorrs 'interrestecl' are sUfficiently'protected under Seclion 25(2). Sitrce tlre period of lirnitation for filing a post-grant opposition ib one rttotttlt "l'l'ortt fte date of publi.cation of grant of a patent", the legislature ltas., tlrerclbro' alreacly taken care of the iirterests of the post-gratrt op.llosers irrltl trttttlc tire period of limita.tion run only fi-om the date of publicaiion ol' the grirrrt of patelt which is expectecl to take place in tertns ol'Sectiott tl'l 12) ol'the Act.

¶60It mustbe unclerstood'that prior to the aurettclrueut irr Set;liorr 25 irr .' ' : tlrd yehr Z}QS, everr a irre-grant opposition coLrlc[ be lilecl orrly by itrt.1' person 'interested'.'It'is only after the arnendtttetrt irr 2005 lltat art-y person can row file the pre-gtant clpposition. The Act, therelirt'c" ntztl<es a distilction between,an. opposer at tlte stage of pre-gruutt o;lposiliorr, u,ho conld be 'any' peLson, ancl the opposer a.t the.post-grant stttgc, rvlttr coulcl olly be a "llelsolt interested'. f'he legislative intetrt is tJrilt tllc rigirt to file a post-gr'ant opposition uncler Section 25 (2) is restrictecl to attl,, I, person interested. The fact that the restrictiou of tlie tiule [o lilc a ;rre-grant which resnlts fi-orir the interprletation givetr b1, this uotlt't 'na'v W.p.(c) Nos. 35t6, gst7,s42z, sLzs oi zo07 a nsss, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 7020 of 2070 puge 33 af 40 69, . irnpact the two classes of pre-grant opposers differently is; colisjslerrt r'r'illr the above distinction. :

¶61While restricting the tiure periocl for filing a pl-e-g'ant d;l;rositi0tt tr-t tlre tirne rrylretr.srr.clr paterrt is gtarrted nra), itlcolt.veltiettce ..1'|.ll\l |)e|.si)t|.' rrylio wishes to file a pre-grant opposition, it is pertainly ttot .goitrg to ' ilbonvenience a "person interes[ed". Even if such 'itttct'estecl' Pel'sol] . rlisses tlre bus at the pre-grant stage, the righ.t of such petsoll'ttl o1l1l0:lc al the post-grairt stage is presen,ed unclet Seqtiori 2-5 (2) ol'lhe Ar:t , Therefore, th.e irrteqtretation placed by tltis Cotrrt certairrll' <;tlltltctt prejudice a persoil interested in opposing the grarlt o['1:atcrrt. As t'egrrrtls any person, other than a llorsou interested, tlie legislatiire irrlcrrl al)pcitl'li to restr-ict the scope of such persoll confirrecl to the stage rrf'pt'c-granl. It would be necessary,.therefcre,.for such person'(rvho l)18.y no{ bc att . 'interert"d'person) fo lie vigilant ancl to watch out [il'tlre ciatc ol' . advertisement of the cornplete specification ancl unclersta.rrcl that thc lirnitation for filiug apre-glant opposition begins to rurt li-orrr that date onwards. Neect to r{.iscourage.filirtg of seriat opltosi.tions

¶62Accepting the subrnissions of pre-Eant opposers in tlte 1l'e.seitt ba{clr of cases that till such time the grant of patent is nol eulelccl i:r thc B-egister, and nohryithstanding that au order has ah'eacly 5..r' passecl orr file by the Controller granting a'liaterrt, ih"y "nn contint:e tc Iilc the prc-grant represeutations in Lenns of Setrtron 25 (l) rrright rcsull irr tlrc W-P.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,54.22, 5423 of 2007 & 703gg, 70400 & 704.50 of 2009 & 1020 of 2010 page 14 of 4O 6Y, pheno111enon of ?serial oppositions', as has happeued in lhe ctttic ol'tlre applicatiols filed opposing the patents appliecl for tr)/ .l tVlitrl 8L Cornpany. Within a da1' after the Controller ie-jectecl thc ;rr"c-g,t'ittt{ oppo$ition filed by SDL, Dr. Gupte filecl. a pre-grarrt opposiliorr. .liottrt therealter Dr. Rindani filed his pre-grant oppositjorr. lrr oLhcr rvoltls" il' ttris Colrl were to hold that the clale of the gr-ant oi'pa{.ent is orrly tlrc tlirte ' on which the factum of such grant is entered in the Register', thcrt tltcrc ' rvogldbe no encl'to fiting of pre-grant oppo.sitiotrs as long as oll ttccottttI of some clelay on ih" adrninistrative side the facttrm o.f grant tll'patcrtt isi not enterbd in thc Re$ister. Givetr the schetne of the Act, ;rttcl {lre rturrrtrc-:i ' of hurdles an applicant for grant of a patent has to orretcolttc, evon il'tlre appiication is fouud to be 'in order for grant', it is not possiblc lo accelrt the interpretation put forlh by the pre-gratlt opposers.

¶63|rerl we harre olte lnoreiituation as in the case.of 'Iibotcc.'l'hc trrerc communipation by the Controller to the applicant lbt'grattt o1'llirte trt Llrirt : the appltcation has been'found in order subject of coutse to tlre tlccir;itrrr on pre-grant oilposition, if bny filed, cauuot be csnstt'irecl as lhc t;flicial decision of the Contloller granting the patqnt. There ltas to [re itrr ot'clct' on file passed by.the Controiler holding thht the pateht has Lrectr lirtrrrd irr order ancl that patent is gtantecl. Until ancl unless such zrtt ol'clet' is llassecl on file, it cannot be said tlrat the pateut.has been'gtanted.

¶64In adopting the p.rovisions. of the above interpretation of Seciion 43 ancl otlrcr rolti.tetl Act tliis Cour[ has kept irt i'iew tlre lirllowirrl4 W.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 35J.7,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 10399, 70400 & 7o45o'of 2009 & 7020 of 201{) page i5 of 40 €f, , 'observations of the Supreme conrt in Etfi.ertairt.rneril. Nefiwtrk. ltttriial . Ltd. v, Super Cassette Xnclustries I'td. (2005) 13 ^qCC 3A, in paras l-17 and 139, which though made in the context of the Co1:yriglrt Act rtttry well apply to the pr.esent cases as rn,ell: "'I37. Furthermore, the conrt while inter'llleting ir . stahrte will put itself in the armchair o[ thc. reasonrible legislature, all statutes mttst be presuntetl to be reasouable. It-is irow trite law that lileral interpretation sJrould be avoided rryben it'leacls to absurdity... ... I3g. In this case, howeveq the nrealrirtg ol' tlrc . stahrte is neither-clear nor sbnsible. tt is a statute where a purposive constr-dction is wan'aLrtecl. It is ir . case wherle sub-section (2). should be liept conf irrecl to clause (a) for that puq:ose. The statute hai to bc rea.d down. It is not a case of impropel interpo.latiorr so as to take a\ryay a primary pul-pose of (ltc legislative rntent. It is expedient to give cllect to tlrc ' intent of the statnte. This itself says that creases oilrl be ironed out. While undertaking the saicl exerci"sc, the Coult's endeavour"r,vor:ld be to give a. ureaning tir the provisious and not rencler it otiose.... )r

¶65This cout{, for the a.foremenlione.d reasons,.holc{s thal lor tlro putlloses of Section 43 (1) of the Act, the patent is "gl-anted' orr llrc: clale on rvhich the Contrbller passes a final ol:der to that elI'bct on the lile. Corrcl.usions: First set of petitions

¶66The.facts in the first set of petitions have alreacl1, been discusscrl. the first set of petitions, the order cla.ted 23'd Arrgust 2006 passccl lry W.P,(C) Nos. 3576, g517,5422t 5423 of 2007 & 703gg, J.0400 & firtSO o7 ZOOI & 1020 of 201e poge. :t6 af 40 lrr thc €c" Conl.rolle1, whiie dismissing the 1l'e-graut opposition that "l ltcl'cLry-ttrtlet' to grant patent (Patent ]rlo. Lg463B) ort balch Applic:a[iott No' 5g3lDell2000,' must be taken Lo be the clate on vrrhiclr l.lre 1'rtt[ctr[ I'r'tts grantecl. Although, as pointed out by l"urn"cl cotrtrseJ lbl' thct l)eti[iottct'l;, reqqires the applicant (.LMiLia ,lc Co-) lct arnintl tlrc the said order requires the applicant (.f,lVhlra Uc L;o'/ L() irrlr()l specification to inclucle a cross reference, it cloes not nralerially al'[-ec't'llre fb-ctun of the grant of patent. The fact that it was enterecl in lhe l{cgi.sttrr' .on. .22n't Septenber 2006' would not make any dilferelloe to tlris Posi{.iort' 'Fufther the statement by J.Mitra ,ft, Co. ir: the plaint in Cl-.S' (t)S)N|o.2020 of 2006 that the paierit'rvas grantecl or] 22"'r Septenrber 200(t vvortlcl also pot rnake a ctiffbrence to the position in Jau,. The clate oJ-thc g,r'arrt ol'lhc patelt iL question to J.Mitra & Co. shoulcl be talreri as 23''r /\rr6',us{- 200(r'

¶67Consequently, alr.y pre-grant opposition fiied a.ftet 23rcl Ar-tg'trsl ?'00(r was clearl1, barrecl under Sectiol 25 (1) of the Act. '1"[rt:relirrc tltr: irnpuglecl orders of the Controller rejecting 1he pt'c-griu:rl o;.rPo.sili,.l,'* ' filed by the petitioners ate Valid ancl clo not call for inter'.tbt'etlc(r- '

¶68Irlotrvithstancling tire above conclusiort, tltis Cor-rt'L also lrolcls lhaI tllc: filing of pre-grant oppositiofl by Dr. Gupte aucl Dr'. Rirrclarli sr-tlrsecluctti' n 2i''l August 2006 was; apart fioru being uot traiutainalrle irr law' alstr an abuse of the.process of law. This court is not cotrvirrccd ol'tltc bonaficles of either of the Petitioners..There has trot beeq arr-y cl'l'ect'ivc clenial of the fact thht both Petitioners wele associetlecl witlr Sl)1, irr si()rIc calsacity or the other. It'is impossible to comprehend [hat cjtltcr trl-llrc:sc' w.,p,(c) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & L0g99, 70400 & 70450 of 7-009 & 1'0',20 ot' 2'0't'0 page 37 o.[ 40 {7'' filing prc-gl'arri Petitioners was unaware'of thp fact that the flling ol lltc l)tc-l opposition .by SDL or of the fhct that it ltas. been ltrlrett trl) lirr' lhc ol' the consicleration by the Controllel of Pateuts or of the [a.cl that (lte ot'clct' ott s r-rch pre-grant oppositioll wet'e p errcling-

¶69Evel according to thqse Petitioners, the coltrnrr-ttti[-1' ol' tltose igterestecl in the,clevelopment of 1he test kits is a sn.raJl otle rltttl cvt't'y s{cp taken by each comiretitor rnoulcl be lcnown to the other. 't'his itscll'bt:[ic.s tbe fact that either Dr. Gupte or-.Dr. Rinclzrni was Lutitwa.re ol' the Pl'e- ( grant oppo'sitions already filed by SDL irl relar.tjon t.ci thc pi.rlcrt[ . appiications of .I. Mirra & Comirany. Given the long hist<lry ol'iitigariorr between the parties, it creates furlher cloubts ou the botalJclcs tll'llrc.sc two Petitioners. 70' For all of the above reasons, this court iincls.absolut'el)r tttt t'tet'tI t' tlre four Writ Petition (C) Nos.3 576,3517, 5422 ancl 5423 ol-2007 irr lltc first set andthey are dismissecl with costs of Rs.20,000/- each r.t,lticlr r'r'ill .rr', be paid by eaoh gf the Petitioners to J. Mitra & Cd. urilhin a ltcriotl ol' .i' fbur rryeeks. Conclusions: Seconel set of peti.ti.orts TI.Inthe seconcl set of petitions by Zephyr, the patettt itl l'avortt'ol"tirlit A4ahajal was grantecl ancl sealecl on 16il' October 2008 rvhelcas [lte prc-grant opposition was filed in one case ou 2Btr'Novernber 200i{ artcl itr Lr't'tr olher,cases on 1ztl' Decernber 2008. Tirere cau be no tttaltltcr tl[- clor.rbt tJrat.the filing of such pre-grant oppositioll was sr-rbseqr-reltL lt: [lro gr-atrt ol-w.P.(c) Nos. 3576, 3572,5422, 542j of 2007 8t 703gg, 70400 & 70450 o1 2009 & 1"020 of 2070 poge 38 crf 40 C{, patent ancl was bared uncler Sectiou 25(I) ol' the ^z\ct 'llrclc is absolutely, therefore, no. en'ol jn the orders passecl Lry tlre t'otttnrllcr' rejectirrg the pie-gi'ant oppositions.

¶72The three Writ Petition (C) Nos. 10399, disrnissed with costs of Rs. 20,0001-each Petitioner Zepl"tyr to Respoudent No.1 Lalit fi-orn today. 10400 aucl 10450 ol-2009 irre whiclr rvill bc paid lry tlrc Mahala.n rryithin lirur hccltd : 'Cortcl.wsiorts itt Writ Fetition (C) No. 1020 of 2010

73.Inview of rvhat has been held above, tlte coutttrutti"u,ir.,,'r tltrtetl /oth' March 200B written by the Co.ntroller to the Petitioner c,a.ttttot.lre Jrbltl to' ,be the date. of gr31t of the patent.. It wds merely a corlrrnuuic;.ttiort stalirrg that the-applica.tion has been fourcl in order for grartt. lt is rrot ;trt r)t'rlcl' to grant.patent. Therefore, when the pre-grant oppositiorr rvas {ilcil'lty Cipla Ltd on 26tr' June 2008 theie was l1o gmlt oIp.atent lry thaI dtflc urtr.l, therefore, such application was ruaintainable fit tetr:r.s oJ'liecliorr 25( l) ol' tJre Act. Although there is an observation by 1J1e Controller lhat aller JOtl'' May 2008 there was ro legal inLpediment in tlte Contloller' pir.ssirrg an. order for gtant of patent'becanse on that date,there \/it.s no 1lt'e-gt'tttrt opposition, the.fa.ct remains that on file llo sucl] otcler was ltassccl. lt cannot, therefole, be said that the filing of the pre-grarrt ol)positiotr orr 26tL June 2008.by Cipla was tirne baned. -.

¶74There is.yet anoflrer grouncl for uot enterl'aiiring the plea ol'tlrc w.p.(c) Nos. i576, g577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 7/,ggg, 70400 & 70450 of 20Os & 7020 of 207.0 . puge 39 ol 40 pctitioner-. l-he challenge is to an orclel reftising the grant of patent r'vltich is relntabie to Section.l5 of the Act. This is appealable before Lhe [Pz\.t] . ,r-incle.r Secliou l17A of the Act as lias.been helcl by this CourL tn UCIJ ' Iiurchim s-a ri. Cipla Ltd" 1-67 (2010) DLT 459'

¶75I?or-the albrementionecl"'reasons, tlr.e wr-it petition is clismissecl witlr . costs o1.I1,s.20,000/-rvhich will be paicl by the Petitioner.to ResportcleLrt' Clipla Ltcl. rvithin for-rr weelcs' .Diractiotts to'the Controt.ler of Pntents T6.l.lreControllerofPatentsrvill,withiiralreriodoftwor,veeksfi.orrr tocla.1, issr-re uecessary practice clirections/instruclions to'a.ll oJ.tlccrs auti co.cenlecl ar-rthorities in terrns of this jr-rct$ment and pattictrlarly itr [ertns ol'what lrars bee. helLt by this Gourt in paras 55 to 58 t5ei]eoI' SLroh . pr*cLice clirections/ instrr-rctions rvill also be placecl siurtrltaneor'rsly on the rvcbsite o[ the. Controller of Patents. 'fhey will be prospeclive in the -.l ^Sellse thelr yyi11 not restrlt in ihe reoi:euiug of orclers granttng palelll" Lnat' . lrave altainecl t-rnalitY-

¶77A certifiecl copy of this orcler will be cleliverecl to the controller oJ:

¶1. Ia.Lents b)' a.special messenger fo'rthwith for cotnpliance' fi l. "i'-' . '' .tr un-,v x 5, 2010 cil] t -r' -\t . i r---'z . i s-MXJRAtr ID[[AX{,J' :' W.P.(C)Nos.351-6,'35L7,5422,5423of2007&70ggg'70400&70450'of2009&1'020of2070 -Fre|n +P, lo>g 1 f ro fq "rf-ewvitt, df 'lin*,,r ( ;:";'r/ ---::.*-

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