Dr.Girish J.Rindani v. UOI & Ors

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 ,' 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. 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'''

¶2lo be refered to the leportel or mt? x'/ ,/

¶3Whether 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

¶2The 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)

¶3J. 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."

¶5In 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".

¶6It 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.

¶7On 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

¶9It 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.

¶10On 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-. ..,

¶11Writ 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.

¶13Patent 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

¶14Appearing 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

¶15Ms. 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".

¶16Referring 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.

¶17N4s. 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

¶19Learnecl 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.

¶20It 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!^*:: \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 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

¶22Therelevant 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)

¶26The argnments aclvancecl by ffi-. Sa.r4eev'I(utnar 'I'iwirri" 1.t,,,'',c,1 'counsel appearing for Zepilr agrinst the orclers oI tlrc (Jorrtrollcr' r.ejbgtiug its pre-grant applica.tion on the grouncl o1'linritatiott r,t,el'c t'nolc or less similar to the argurnents a.clrranced by counsel appearirrg firr Dr'. Snehlata Gtrpte and Dr. Girish Rindani in relation Lo the patcirts grantecl to J. I\4itra & Co.

¶27In resisting tlie petitions, it was suburitted by.Mr-. Maninder Sirrgh, learned Senior counsel appearing for Lalit Mahajan lhat all:r' tlrc lu:rerrdment to the Act in 2005, the tinr.e periocl Ib1 filing a pre-griurl opposition tnay have been reinoved but a reasonabJe interpretatiorr ltar; lo be given to the arnended Section.25 keepin$ iu view the contcxt. 'l'l<: pla.ces emphasis on the words "nnless'the. context othej'rvisc requit'es" occurring in the openiirg portion of Sectiort2 (1) of the Act ancf sutrrnits that the locus to challenge'a patent thai has been grantecl gets rcstrictccl lo W.P.(c) Nos. i576, 3577,5422, 542i of 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 1020 of 201.0 page :1.5 <tf 40 Y\, a person interested. He subriritt"ct that consicl.ering that thc gl'irttt o{' a paterrt is a recognition of the creative work of the.invetrter, atttl ltlrs lrl Ilass a fairly rigorous examina.tiou procedttte tlrrough sevr:t'ill sllagcs which by its very na.ture is tirne.consutniug, it..t'easollirblc ;lcriocl irs opposed to an inciefinite open-encled periocl,has to be given lbl' tlle lilirrg of a. pre-gr-ant opposition, which is by any persol'r. lg. nf:-. Maninder-Singh pointed out Rules indicated that the seveldl acts that the sclterue of ihe z\ct atltl tlrc leading to thg glart{ ol' (llo ;lirtcrrt certificate were to be perfonned within silecific tjlne periods. l(clbi'r"irrg, .to Rule i4 (2) of the Rules he submjttecl that a patent certif icitlc is to lrc ordiirarily issuecl within seven day-s fiom the clate of grattt of 1.iir(eut uttclcl' Secticn .13. Uncler Rule'24,Lhep.eriocl flor which an applicatiorr lirr'llutcrrt slrall not ordinarll.y be operrto public rurder Section 1lA([) srlrall Lrc lll months.freni the clate of fiting of application oi' the clate ol'plitu'i[.y cf application, wliichever is earlier. In temrs of Rule 24-lt (lXi) it reclttcst For examinationruiclei'Section 118 of the Act is rnacle u,ithin z!tl rnonlhs fi-orn the date of priority of'thc appliuation or fiour the date ol'lilirtg ol' tlre application rvhichever is.earlier. Under Rule 24-B(2) (i), the ;tcliorl within which the Controller shall refer the application iurcl s1;ecific:utiorr ancl other clocuments to tlie Examiner where' srrclt l'ccluesl l<tt' examination has been macle shall orclinzu-ilv be u,ithin one utorrttr Il'urrr ; the date of its publicatiolt ,or withiu onc urorrtlr fi-orrr tlre rlate o{- examina.tion, whichever is lerter. . Under Rule 24-B (2Xii), tlrc [ii;xturrirrcr sho-Lrld.ordinarily. submit the report rryithin one uronth but rrr.rt exceedirrg t|/.P.(c) Nos. i576, ss77,5422, saY r'f zooZ & LQss9, 10400 & 10450 df zoot " :t::"rrorrlllo \r three months fiorn the c]ate of reference and thereai'lel' the Colltlolicr' r Ie 24-B (2xiii), clisposc ol' tho I'epor'l should, in'accorda.nce with Rr rarithin orle month .of its. receipt. Under'Rule 2tl-I] (3). tlrc llrst exarnrnatron repolt.is sent to the applicant within six rltotttlL.s llurn tlrc rlate of request for exainination or publication wh^ictrever is latcr ilrrtl nncler Rgle 24-B (4), the time fol pr.rtting an afplicaLion ill orcler (or gratrt r.rncler Section 21 shall be trarelve nonths fi'om the cla.{.e ott tryltic:h tllc l'irsrt sl.aternelt of objection is jssuecl to. the applicartt to contpl.l' u'itlt (lrc reqnir-ements. It is submittecl that given the speciliccl tirrrc lirtrits prescribed at the stage of scrutiny of the application.s for gltirrl ol'paterrI ancl given the fact'that the grant o['a. pa.tent relates. bacJ< (o tlre cltrte orr which the application is fled, the patentee hctuall), loseq lnuclt ol'{his period for working the patent. Given the fact tlrat art altplicirtior.t lilr' grant of patent.<;an get.published only after o p.rio,l of IB lnonllts ittttl I that the Controller calnot take r4r the application lbr exttttrirtaliorr tor a period of six months after its pr-rblication, it is uecesSarl, [o t'citrl i] reasonable tine limit for filiug a pre-grant opposiiion. ReJ'el'enoe is lnitdc to ttie decisions in'Surjit Sirtgh trf,ul.rav. Urti.on. oJ'Ittdi.n (1991) 2,gC(' ET and, Directorate of En"forcem.eni v. Deepnk frfalruiun Altrx X99''l S{-' 177s. fMt"ir Periiion (C) No. 1020 o.f 2010

¶29The petitioner Tibotec Phannaceuticals ('"I'ibotec') lil<;c! ils application for giant of patcnt on .t1tt'J.ru" 2004 lbr,an irrverrtion titlrrcl "Combination of Clrtochonr.e P,rso b.p.n,l.,'r.t Protea.se lutribitot-s'.'1"Ircl \M.P.(C) Nos.'351.6, 3.5L7,5422, 5423 oI i007 & L0399, L0400 & L0450 of 2009 & L020 of 20.t0 p.age 17 o.[ 40 'rf. ' Ub r I j.irst exaruination report was issuecl on 14tl'\4arch 2001. 'l'he rPPlicirtiorr L) was published on 30tl'November 2001 iu terurs oi Section llA o['tltc Act. After consiclerilg the response of th'e Petitioner irr le;lly to the lirst . exaruinalion repoft, the Controller issuecl a letLer io rhe Potitiorrc[ tltr 2[lrr' ' \4arch 2008 to the following effect: ' J. YlAn VrI ' Cc\J-^r ' . r gur abotre Application for pa.tettt bas beelr lotrrrd in order for grant. However, the Patent cet'ti{icate 'rt rryur be issuecl. only a.fter processing of tlte , ' Application uuder Section 11(a) l.'':;i'c IlAl arrd coinpletion of the statutory lirnit ancl disposal ol' pre-grant opposition, if any, onA.r Section 25(l) oi' . the Act."

¶30The petitioner's case is that ou 30tl'Mai' 29pg, the ttta'uclatt'rt1' p.ol'iotl of six months in terins,of Rule 55(1-A) of the Rules arltl lhc llrrcc . conclitions in the aforernentionecl .letter stood'satisfied. Accorclilrg to thc Petitioner-, the patent was cleerned [o ltave beetr grarrtecl ii-orn strch clalc : jL On 26tl' June 2008, Cipla Ltd. filed a pre-gtant re;lresctr(atiort/ opposition. This.was notifiecl to tJre Petitioner {i-orri the l)elhi Ollic:c o1' , . tlie Coltroller. The Petitioner, by its letter dalecl 2I't Octr.rbr-'r 2(J0ti" lioilted olt io the Controller that the pre-grartt oppclsi{iott r,t'itli lirrrc-baned. The Petitioirer ai.so filed an interlocutorl, petit.iorr clatecl l0t" Irlovernber 2008 praying for issuance of a 1:ateut certillcate in its fitvotrt' a:rd for rejecting.the opposition filed by.Cipla l-tc[. 'l'lrerealier' llrc 'Peiitioler also filecl a1 afficlavit of evidence ott 7'r' Jailttat'y 2009 ol'otre Professor David Jolirl Back. w.P.(c) Nos. 3576, i577,5422, 542'.J af 2007 & 1-0399, 1"0400 & 1.0450 of 2009 & 7020 af 2o7o ' Poge 1B af 40 ,ll .

¶32The petitioner ald Cipla Ltcl. were.healcl by the Assi.stant CorrLrtillcr' of pate'ts o+ gtlt Janubry 2009 ancl rvritten srrbnrissions \^/el'e liletl try tlrem on 2lLt'March 2O0g. By an orcler datecl 30'l' March 2009' tlre Assistant Controller. allowecl the pre-grant opposition arr.cl tel'trsetl l.o Llrc petitioner the grant of the patent oir the ground of lacl< of iltrrcrrti.rre sre1l. lllre Controller's order. daiecl 30tl' N,{arch 2O0g has beert challelrgetl [r.y Tibotec jn this petition. Aliong the grounds laised in tiris lretitlorr is llrill the pre-gra1t opposition filed after 30tl'May 2008 was ttot rnairrttriltable. I Sw.bnr.issions of Cotrnsel. irt Tibotec's petitiort

¶33IVh-, Rajiv Nayyar, leame{ Senior:corursel appeaiirtg [ot' tlrc l)clitiotrcr Tibotec submitted that there was a distinction be[weeu tlte 'isstiittlc'e' ol'rr pirtent certificate r.urderRule 74 anclthe 'grattt' of lla.tent lbr {.lre l.rLrl?o.sos of Section 43'. FIe also refened to the inrpugnecl orcler passccl bv. thc Assistant Contrcller r,vhere ii was' observecJ. tiral '"tllcl'c \^;ils ll() irnpedirnent on 30tl'Ma.,v 2008 to the issuance oJ'the lra.teut cct'(i{it:atte arlil t'hat tlie Patent Offrce shoul.l have clone so'lvitirin seven clay:r r;l'30'l' \4a1' ^tlr -. 2008 as tire applibation rvas published on 30'hNovettrber 2001 arttl s;ix ruonths period was over on 3Otl'May 2008". It u'as ftll-ther oltscl'rrertl itt 1he irnpr-rgnecl orcler that the grant of patent by the CorrLl'ollcr irrrcl llic sulsequent issuance.of letters of patent.have Lalteu.lllol'e. tinrc; thtrrr it collcl have taken orclinar-ily but that rlid not pr;eclude tlte Jilirrg o('a Di'c-grant opposition. It is a.cc.ordingly sub:rrittecl that Ibr all fractir:al puqloses the effectirre clate of grant of the palent shotrlt{ trr: -:l0rl' Mitv 2008 or the vellr ne.xt dly tliereaftet. ' w.p_(c) xos. ds7a, s577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 10399, 1.0400 & 70450 of 2009 & 1020 ctf 201,0 ' Page.79 of 4t) Y s', '34. lW..Majunclar, Jearnecl counsei appearitrg for Cipla L'tcl' strbrrritlocl ' that at the stage of filing of the application and its exalnitraiiort irr irritirrl .p|ase by the Coltroller, there \^/as no third pa.rty. ',[[re Controllcr at:ts its a .fa.ct filcling authority. Section 3. of the Act sets otrt tlte g,,rorrrltls firt-refusal. If the patent is reftrsecl, the orcler is"rela.ta.ble tr: Scctiorl l5 ol'llrc Act. The Contloller coulcl ask for an atnendtnettI to be urttde clvclt al [ltttI stage. f'lre iltination that the patent is in orcler is trot by iLse|l'a gtatr( oI" patent. This is an order relata.ble.io Section 15 of the Act. Accottlirlg trr liinr, tlib stage of Section 43 for graut of patent is rea.cltecl onlf irltcr' colrpletion of the'tr)rocesses envisa.ged by Section 15 cf the Act. l llrtlcr' Section.45,tbe clate of patent is a.lready a fixed clate since ttttdcr ljcotiort 45 (1).'ievery patent shall be datecl as of the clate. on which the aplrlicittiort for patent was filecl". It is this date that is euterecl irt tJrc ltcp.islcr llcr pointeil out that under n.U" B0 r;o lceep a patent itr force, the rc;ttcu'al l'ees specifiecl in the Firsi Schedule shall be payable at the e;'cpit'ntiort o('thc s..oud )rear from the date bf the lta.tent anci the peliocl lor pltl,rprertt o1' renewal fees rna1, be extendecl up to six montjrs. Sc the tlalc ol'piitcrri becornes critical for the p.ayrent of reneu,al f'ees;, Whele an applicarit has not paid renerval ftes, it trreans that be is aware that lre hils rtot lreicrt granted a. patent. 15 lVIr MajurirCar pointecl out tiiat lJncler llule 122, tlle Controller catr corect clerical elrors. Likera,ise, under Section 1zl6 tlre Colrtrtlllet' c:ittt call lbr inforrna.tiotr regal'ding the col'rlr11ercia.l working c)l' tlrc ;raterrt r.vithin two months fi-om the clate of srich uotice. Notrn,itlrslan,-lirrg ll'ris, W.P.(C] Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 Bi 70ggg,"70400 & 70450' of 2009 & 7020 of 201.0 page 20 ct! 10 Lurder Section such rnannet 146(2) every atrd form and paterrt holcler Jras in rrot less thalt [o ftn'nislt sIatetttclrts ilt six nroltths its lllil.)/ lrc prescribed as to the extent to which the pa.tentecl itrvetttitrrr lras lrccrr worked on a. collnercial icale in India. If no such.repoLts at.c Jllccl, tlrertr it is plail that no patent has been grantecl. Ilre wor-ldng ol'tlre ;rtrlcrrt ar-ises onllr yrh"re it is granted. Mr. Maluutclar pointecl otrt tlrirt ttlttlcl' ftttt" 130 an applica.tion for review of the Controller''s oL(lcr' lrirs lo lrc ma.cle withrn ofle rnonth fi'om the clate of cotnrirurticatiolr of lho tfcc:isiori to the applicant

36.Itis.submitted by lvft. Irlajrurrdar that in the instant case thei'e \,virsi no presumption of glqnt of patent only on the basis oI the letter rlirlccl 2llrr' .March 2008 as it vras only an infomral intjnratjoq tO the-[)ctitioricr-u,lric.h rvas in fact notrequired to be r.nacle in law. It is onl1,as n. krrrg srtarrclirrg practice that the Controller has been issuing snch connuunir--,irtirlrrsi but there is no guarantee that patent vrould be grantecl only on accoun{ ol-such cornmunication. Seconclly, vuithout the cornpletion cll'llre procetlu.r'e envisaged under Section 25(I) and Sectioir 11A, there can. l-re no tl,r'arrt ol-a. patent. It rs submitted that for the purposes of the Act "tlre clirtc ol' grant of the patent is the date on which the Resirondcnt autlroritics;rirss the order of grant. It is only after such an orcler is passetl, thal l patent is treated as granted no rnaLter rn'hen the certifica.te ol' grarut is isriLrctl tir' r,vhen the grant is r-ecordecl or notified." It is a.ccorclingll, subrrritleil tlrirt a.s orl the clate of tlre .filing of pre-gra.ut,opposition,'no gra.uf til'pirtcnt hrrl taken place as erivisaged by tfue Act, W.P.(,C) Nos. 3576. 3577,5422, 542i of 2007 & 70ggg, rcAOO A 70450 of 2o0g 8, 1o2o o7 iot.o , Page 21. of 40. !1r f''

¶37The writ petition is also resistecl on tlte gtotutcl'of 'laches. lt is sla{crtl ) ilrat the,Petitionel; chose to cJrallenge the'orcler datect 3Otr' lVlirt'c;h ,l()0t) only e1 22"t Ianvary 2010. Reliance is plagecl ou.tJte.iuclgrtrurt o('tlre Snprenre CoLrrt instate af X{.F. v. Nnn.dla.l "faistvnt. (1986) 4 ,\'C(: 566. fF4rcn can. a pa{.e1tt |te said.to be grunted? , . 't :l8.^The conrnon qriestion tha.t ar-ises irr all these petitions is vvhr:u crtttt it I be said that,a patent has been grahted? Section 2 (l) of'thc Ac[ opcrrs with the r.r',crds'"rurless the coirtext otherrryise lequir-es".'['lriri lrits ltl lle rea-cl with section 2 (1)(m) which clefines a 'patetrt' ,, 'lu palertt lbr atry inrrention granted nlr.der this Act". The date of glant ol'patcri{ i:; cr:ilicirl' . fcr deterruirring the tinre within which a pre-greurt opposi(ion hrs lr.r lrc fiiecl in terms of Sectio n25(1) of tire Aci. After tl',. o,,r.,,clrncrrl to tlrc Act and inparticular to Section 25 (1) ivith efflect li-orn l".liuruar'.y 2(X)-5, a significant change has been brought in this regat'd. l'r'ior' [o its ainendinent, nnder. Section 25(I) the pre-grant oppositiorr lrlcl {o be lllcd rvithin four tnonths fiou the cla.te of acfrrertisenrent o[ tho :rc;ce1-ltancle trl' thq coru.plete specifiqation.'This advertisement intthe oflicinl gazettc r'1' tlte acc,eptanoe of complete spebilication was uncler Sec{iorr 2.1 ol' thc Act, prior to its amendrnen.t. A ifurther nraximurir period of'onc rno.lrtlr could be allowed b1' the Controller for making the pre-grant oppositiorr. Such prc-grairt opposition coulcl be rua,de only b1, r;1r"rr,,,, irr(ercsroclr'.

¶39The significairt c'hange blouglit about by the anrencltnent to ,\cr;tiurr 25 in 2005 is that lte pre-grant 'tepteseutaLiou' (or ollllositiorr) rrgirirrs{ t/tt.P.(c) tJtos, 3576, 3s77,5422, s+zt o|rzooz g: i.Tggg, .1"0400 & L04s0 of 2009 & 1"0?.0 af 20L0' . page 27-of 40 : the grant of pa.tent can.be made by "any persott". The pttblicirliorr ol'llrc ' cornplete'specification now takes place uuder Section llA o[ llre Acl Uucler Rule 24 of the Patelt Rules 2003 the publioatiort ltappetts tro[ earJier than 18 months fi'om the date of filing of the applictrtiott ot'tltc clate of priority of the application, whichever is earlier. .:

¶40llhere are specific'tirne limits for the stepS to be lal<crt lbr tlrc acceptance of the complete specificatiou 1br publioatiorr b)' tlrc controller' f'his is followecl by et reqrrest urade, t2)' the applicarrt lirr examina.-tion in terms of Section 1l-B of the Act. 'I'his is [illlorvcd b-r' tlre exarnination.of the application under Seotion 12 ofthe Act r,r'lrich ltits ttr take place within the specified tinre lirnjt as prescribecl in Rrrle 2'l-lf ol' the Rules. Without gourg into the up.rifi, details of ttris tirnc periocl, l'trr' tJ:.e purposes of the present petitions it is sufficient to notc lJral whele it is intencled that there Shoulcl be a. specific tirne liniit withjn urhich a step has to be taken either by the applica.nt for the g1ant of pa"teut or tr^1.' [lro Conlroller then such tirne lilnit is clearly iuclicated in tlie Ar.;t iltcl tlrc Rule.s,'

41.'fhere is another provision which is relevant irr this corttoxt. LJrr<lcr' Rule 55(1-A), no patent shall be [r'arited before tJre expiry ol'ir lteriotl oi' six months fi-om the date of publicaticln of the applicatiott urttl.et' fieclio.rr 11A. As ln.r.r.rlt, at:'ieast for a period ol .2 ysat's al'ter' filirrg tlf'llrc application for grant of patent, no pa.ient can be grii.utecl. lt is r.ltrring tlris period thit tlie steps for examination of the'p'a.tent in'ternrs ol''licctiolr ll W.P.(C) Nos, 3516, i577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & L0999, 70400 & 70450'of 2009 & 1020 oI 2010 page .23 <t[ 40 fl' -+ s^ and therea.fter the considera.tion by the Contr-ollet' ol'.lhc t'elttlt'l ol' tlrc Examiner rurcler Section i4 foltowed bf attrettcltttetits, il-lttly, irrc lll . Lurdertaken. It'is cluring this tinre a.lso that the pre-glattt o1:llositiorr is expected to be filed. ..

¶42ihe fact of the acceptance of the complete specificatiott, itr; irrclicntctl 'by tlie applicant for grant of a patent, [raving been act:e;ttccl lilr publication is eviclent fi-oin the achrertisement of suclt speciJicatiorr in thc Pa.tents .Iournal in tenns of Seclion 11A of the Act. 'l'herclore , ilrr)/ .psrsolt who is seehing to object to the grant of the ltaterrt is cxpecter-l (o ' .t<eep the'track of publication of suclt corrplete specilica.tiorr. 'l'his ('otrr'[ has been rnfbnnecl that publirurioo also talces place on tlrc rvebsitc, in acldition to being published irr the Jorunal.

¶43There is h firther time restriction. Und.er ltule.2tl, the pcriocl lirr' which a.n application for patent "shall not ortcl.iuarily be ol)en to lrublic under sub-sectioq (1) of Section ll-A shall be ltt rnonth.s [L'orrr tlri rlalc of filing of the application oi-the clate of tlie priolity of thc alrplicutiorr, whichever is earlier." In effect, therefore, it will.not be llossible firr ir person seeking to object to the grant of a pateni to nral<e 't'epl'osctttaticltt' earlier than a period of 1B mouths after the date of the liling r;l'sur-rlr applicatiou. In any event since in tenns of Rule 55(1-A) no patcttt ciltt Lrc granted before the expiry of a period of six nonths fi'onr tlre rlatc r.rl' publication and the Controller is expectecl to publish the application within one rnonth fiorn the date of expiry of the saicl perod, therc is lt W.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, .5423 of 2007 & 70399, 704.00 &L 10450 of 2009 & 1"020 oI20I"0 poge 24 of 4A t 3r least a .periocl of six rnontirs therea.fler for the opposer lo lllc the' representa.tion.

421.. Given the above scilerne, the allreudrneni in2005 to Section 2-5 oi-tlrd ,Act r.vas alrparently ma,le'"vith a vierry to extendi:rg tlie tilne pcricr<l rryithirr which an cpposition to the grant of patent hacl io be macle. lJrrder tlrb pre-anienclecl Secti ori 25,the persons intdre.stecl il: o;tposing tlrc grarrt ol' palent hacl,to necessarily file such opposition rr,,ithin lbrrr. rrrorrllls, il 'period extendable only by one month, wheleas under the a'r,e,,,jccl Section 25 that;leliocl is clearly extencled at least utr 1o six rnonths.

¶45Given the practical aspect of the matter. no paten{. is u.sually 13r'irrrrccl ' iurtnediately on the expirl, of six rnonths h'orn, the clate oI'ltr.rtrlicaticllr ol tlre applica.tion. It is usua.lly a rrnrch longer period.. Thc aruc:rrclrrrcrrt irr Section 25 clearlli, therefure, enlarges the tinre {or-fililrg .ol-l Prc-gr.ant a' opposition.

¶46The thrust of the Act is thal the rnel-e grant of patent cloes rrol ensur"c

(a) of lhe /-\ct. Llverr {he gr"arr( of a pateiit',loes ttot ettsnre tha.t there rvill be no lirrther clrallcrrge;. l..Jirder Section 25 (2) of the Act, agairst the grant of a pateut and tlrc re.jcctierr of a pre-grant oppositioli, a post-grant bpposjtiou carl be lllecl b-y arrt, person . interested before the Iutellectual. Property Appclla{c l-foirr'cl ,

(IPAB). Aur application'for re.,,ccation cftn be filecl beibLe'tlrc ll)AL! b1, ary person interestecl Lutder Section 64-cf the Act. If the patcrr{ lr<tlrlt,r. 'wt'P.rc) Nos. g515, ssJ-7,5422, s4zi of 2007 Er lojgg, 70409 & 704s0 of ?c09 & L020,t{ J-\Jo puge 2i of 40 f\'t files a suit for in{r-ingement counter clairn cha.llenge the with Section 64 of the Act)., the Defenclalt in srtclt a sLrit catr [r-y tval' el'11 rraliclity of grant of llatent ([iecl'iorr 107 r.cad 4i. The scheme of the Patents Act, therefote, is sLrclr tlrat {ltct'o at'c ,".r"rui hudies to cross before the grant of a pal.eltt cart bo saicl to lrc fiual: There. are two other provisions that require to be trotio,lcl. LJrrtlcr' Sectiol 53, term of every pa.tent "shall be 20 yeals ti'oln.tbe clatc ot'lilirrg of the application for the patent". Under Sectjon 4.5 "errerJ, patcrrt slrrrll be dated as of tbe. date on which the application'(or ltatenl rvttli filccl". Smce this clate cannot possibll' be cirang:tl, o patenl holclel' liral' s1111 t"' not being able to work the patent duririg the tjnre w'h'elt it t'crttititts challenged, or its grant is sta.lrsd or rvhen Llte perteut lrrlldcl' is ttttI confident to exploit it conunercialty tjll all the.challenges to it.s valiclity are overcoine. Since there is alieacly.a loss oi'tiute'for-the pttterrt ltolcler' in tire above processes, the time periocl envisagecl by Seoliorr 25( l) ol'lirc Act for filing of a pre-gl'ant opposition canuoi possilrly bc liberally qonstruecJ., notwithstanclirrg tha.t there is 1ro specitic tjrrtc pcrirlil mentioned therein. The outer liurit is the clate ort u,lticlr thc lrirlerrt is glanted.

¶48A careful loolc at Sectjon 43 of the Act shows that in tlte llrst lrlac'e art application fbr.patent has to be fomd '"to be in orcler ltl' [r'alrl". 'l'lris lnchldbs the peribd duing *hich compJete specifica.tiorr is acc.epte<f lirr' publication'in telms of Section 1[A flollowecl by tlie ex.arttjttitliorr ol'tlre W.P.(C) Nos. 3576, i577,5422, 5423 of 2007 A nWS, 70400 & 1"0450 of 2009 Bi J020 of 2t)1o . \ S;f , patent which takes.place witliin the time-fi-atne set dre Rules. A reftisal at that stage will be govetued Act. If the patent is not refused a.t that stage atlcl tro l has bqen filed, the patent 1:roceeds for registra.tion. out in [tule 24-l] ol' bl, Sectiorr |5 ol'tlrc pr e-gt'artt ct1t1tOs I tlttlt 49; Where anl,: pre-grant oppositiou is filed in the (ilrrrr ol' a represeirtation under Section 25(I) of the Act, tl:ett it has to be cxit.tttirted following the proceclure or-rtlinecl in Rule 55 (l) 'flte .rcllrcsptttatit'itr sholld ilcllde a sta.teurent of evicleuce aucl a reqtreSi lbr hearilrg. tJrrclc,l' Rule 55 (2), tlre Controller is to consicler such lepreseirtatioli "ott11, tvltctt ti a request for examination of an applicatiou has been iilecl". A rrotice is .girrep to the'applicant "for'grant of pa.tent" wltele the Corrtrollct'ltll'ltrl; rttt opinion, upolt considering the pre-gr-ant opporitiou, tlta.[ thc pirlelrt slrorrld' be reftised qr anrended. This happens uncler Itule 55 (3). "l'lrc a;l.plicarr( for grant of paten[ then responds to the notice by filing ltis statcrnettI ol' evidence under Rule '55(4.) within three tlouths fi'otr-r tlre tlatc o1' tlrc . notice. Under Rule 55 (5), the Controller may, or1 consiclelatiorr ol'tlrc' statenr.ent and eviclence filecl by the applicant, ei.tlrer t-elilsc lo gt'rttt a patent orrequire the. complete specification to be atuencled beJbr-e tlrc patent is granted

¶50Then we have Rule ,55 (6) rvhich is reliecl r.rpoir "n{"nsi,,"ly [r1r 1lla; learned counsel for the parties aucl. rryhich teacls as rttttlet-: "55(6) After consiclering the represetttation alttl submission rnacle cluring tlte heariug if so tecluestetll . dre Controller shall proceed fuitlier sirrrulta.neoLrsly l/l/.P.(C) Nos. i576, 3577,5422, 5423 of'200.7 & 1,0399, 7O4OO & 70450'of 2OO9 & 70.20 of 20'lt) t6'' ' eil'her rejecting the representatiou ancl grantiug thc ' patont or accepting the represeutatioir antl reltrsirr$ . . the grant of patent ori that applicatiou, orclina.rily witliin one mouth fi-out the contlrletiotr of abovc , proceeciings." ..

¶51it is plaip, therefore, that once the fi'e-grant oppo.sition.is cleciclccl, tlrc Controller sirnultaneously proceecls to either reject such reproscrrta(iorr 'and grant the patent or acbept the r-epresentation.and lefi.rse the pii.tcrrt. The lariglrage of Rule 55 (6) leaves no manner of cloubt that.(hesc [u,cr . a.ctious i.e. the coirsidetation of the re1:resentation aucl the llrrirl clcr:iiriorr ' on the applica.tion for grant,of patent take flace simultaneousl_1,..

¶52Itis possible that there ur" ,nor. tha.n one representa.Lions [:y u,er1, 111.' pre:grant opposition. Idealllr, the Controller witl bunch fherrr t<tgctlrer'" heaf thetrt seq.uentialll'and express a. final opinion on cach o[-tlrcrrr as lhr' as practica.ble, on tire sei,tne date. It is lilce a court heatrirrg; a batoh ol-petitions seeking siinilar relief. It is irossible that even after-the lrcar-irrg on one brinch of'pre-grant oppositions has couclucled ancJ orcler'lra:r [rccrr reserved tltereon, another pIe-gtant opposition or a set ol'oppositiorr.s is fileci prior to the ploltourlcernentby th1 Coutroller oi'.tbe clecision orr Ilrc lirst set of ple-grant oppositions. Then the scheme of the Aot retltrires llre Controller to deal "with such subseqtrently filed pre-grant oppositiolls iis rvell. Flowever, oltce a final decision is pronouncecl on the pre-grrur[ oppositiotts, the Controller shoulct, consistetrt witlr l.lie re<ltrirentcnI ol' itule 55 (6) sirnultaneou.sly plonouirce tlie clecision on the a1:pli,:irtir:n lirr' w-P-(c) Nos. i516, jst7,s4zz, 542J of 2007 & 70Tgg, 70400 & t04s0 of 2009 & t0z0 of z0i0 pctge 2ll ef ,10 ,fJ( The Coltroller should clearly sta.te, sinttrltarlectrsl1r, 1|1111 is forurd iu order and that tbe patent ls beirrg grantccl. . grant ofpatent. the applicatior:

¶53Reverting to Seition 43 (1), the'language usecl is thal "a patertl .sltitll be granted as expeclitiously.as possible." Therefor'e.the patent hrrs to.trc granted otlce it is found that either the application has nof bccrr rclirsecl irr tenrrs of Section 25(L) readrvithRule 55 (6) or it has not lrecrr lilrrrcl irr conLravention of any pi-ovision of the Act. In other vvotrls, irt tlris stirgc the, Conttoller is irot expectetl to .dela.y the plonoultcenrent ol-llre lirrai decisiou. . The thrust of Section 4.3 (l) and l{ule 55 (6) is lhrrt ol' expeditious clecision rnakiug by the Coutroller. Sectiol 43 ( l).inrliczrtcs that the'"pa.tent shall be granted.....with the seal'o1'the pa.terrt ol'f icc arrct the date otr which the patent is granted shall be enterecl in thc l{ogil;[er'". . M4ren read continncinsllr, the.language of Section 43 (l) ckrcs appeur {o irrdieate thai it is the decisiorr takerj by the Controller on llle *,1',i,,1, is tlre determinitr.g event for ascertaining 'the date of gralrt oi'paterrt.' 'l'lrer sea.ling of the pa.tent and'the entering of the parteut irr the ltegistcr obviousll, follows tire act of the Controller passiug an ol'der to tjic, e{'fbc;t .tliat the patent has been gr"anted. In other word.s, the sealing ol'tlrc pirtcLrl and the enteriirg of,the patent in the Re.gister are, givetr thc larrgiragq ol' Section 43 (1) of the Act, iutenclecl to be miuisterial acts erriclcrrcing tlrc: grar:t of patent, wlr,icli is at a stage antgrior to those ntinister jal acts. 54'. Section 43 (2) talks of the publishing by the Contlollci' ol'"thc lircl that the paient has been granted". The language of Sectiorr '43 (2) is plirin. . W-P-(CJ Nos-3976, 35L7t5422, 5423 of_2007 & 7Cggg, 70400 & 70450 of 2.009 & l0Z0 of 2010 [)an" in nf oo , . . l0 aat t4' 'fhe act of publica.tion clearll, foll.orvs the grant of pa.terrt. I)cr lorcc Ilro grant of patent is anterior to the publication ancl has to neccssiirll)r be lt n point earlier to the publication. It is, therefore, riot possiblc 1o agrcc rvith the subrnissionb made on behalf of the pre-grant oppc)sers in tlrc llresent balch of'Qases that the pateut cannot be saicl to.have bcorr grarrtccl till tlris fact is published in the official gazetLe. Civerr tlral tlrc inteqrreta.tion of the provision has to be cotrtextual, this Clor,rr'l holtls llral the datq of grant of patent is the date on rvliich the Cotrtroller passeii all order to that effect.on the file. This Court uow proceeds lo clclrl tvith thc apprehendecl practical problems that the office of the Contlollcr rnalr Ircc on accoutlt of the interpretatiofl placed by this CoLu'[ bu ,scotirtn zl.] ol'tlrc 'a Act. Freviotr.s Grrnouttcenrcnt qf tlrc date o.f Ttronouncetn.enL o.f ordc:rs

¶55It was snbmitted that an order does not beconre ellectivo till suclr tinle it is communicatecl oi rnade known,'because it therr girics t,ultrirblc rights to both thd holder of the patent as well as any.llersotr irrlerostecl in opposing the glant of patent. While it is correct that the knor,vlectgc ol,an order granting a patent is irnportant fi'orn the point of ruiefu oI' lroth tlre .zrpplicant for grant of patent ald the opposer, it is Lurlil<ely that tlrc applicant js irot preseirt, either in person or tluough .a tepreserrtalive" t'rrr tlre clate on whiclr an order is'pa.ssred by the Controller ot-Lhe Assistarrt Controller granting.the patent. Lt oider to obvjate any cli{iic;irl(y orr lhis score) tliis Court rarould'like to inrpless upon the Controllcr ilncl . [lrc Assistant Controlleis to list cases for pronotrncernent'of orclers and rnllte f.e.O ruos. Js7G, 3s17,s422, s42s of 2007 & toseet 70400 & 1o4so of 2oot " tr:::,,;rotiiio ,t\' that fact known by pLrblishing a ''ca.use list' of such oascs urttler'lltc heacling "for prbnouncelneut of olders" the previoLrs eiqettittg lrtlth clrr thc r,vebsi.te as well the uotice Board of the Office of tlrc Coiltrollcr,.itrst as it happens in the Courts. Therefore both tl'ie applicant lor granl trl'ytaterrt zr.s Well as the pre-grant opposer wotrld be aware of the. clarte orr rvlriclt thc orders are to. be pronorurced. Since.it rryill be at lea.st lhc 1x'cvious . errenirrg on which the list is ava.ilable.on the rvebsite aucl a.lso;rlaccrl orr the. notice boarcl of the Office of the Contloiler. thele will tre srrl'licicrrl rrotice to such parties. " D ea ling wi.t h. IX.ev few Fetitio rts.

¶56If an approach similal to that :fbllowed by couits in hearirrg ca.ses arrrl pqssing orders tltereon is a.clopted, urnch of the problenrs; Iircecl b1, 1;'r" Controller qail'be resolved. For instairce, once a finai orcler i.s ;.;rorrourrcerl oil a petitiori by the Coiu't, therr no ftlrther applicatjorrs r,r,hcthcl' lirr' urtervetrtion, irnpleadntent, oppositior or ally other relief is cutertailrcd by sucir conrt. The only exceptioir is the filing of a revieiv altlrlicirticrr [r1, : a pafty to tire case. LiJcervise, once a final order g:'anting ;tatcrrl is llhsrsccl. l:y tlie Co:rtrollei on the file, there is rlo qLrestion ol' thcrea licr' etrteltaitring a pre-gr.ant op.ppsition as it is barleci urrCer Seciiorr ;15 (l) witli no cJiscretion given to. the Controller. If a. revievr, lrctition is I'ilcrl Itirder Section 11 (1) (f) read witlrRule 130, it will be by thosc rvlro arc partiis 1.o the order of the Controller or the Assistant Controllci'rlro ' orcler i.eview.of whic'h is sotrght.If such revierv petitiou .is entertainccl, arrcl tlrc i'ecal.lecl i.hen as it liapperrs r,vitir judicial or<lcrs g1, r:our.[s;, w'P,(c) Nos, 3576, g5L7,5422, 54zJ of 2007 & t[asg,'1Q400 & 104s0 of 2009 g. 1.020 of 20,10 page 37 of 4O (irc {oo .. clock is put ba.ck to [re stage wh,ere the original orcler was. passcd trtrtl rlll legal conseqlrences would flow. This by no lnealts alters tlre lircl tlrat tlrc ciate of the grant of patent is the clate on which tlie Contrclllel or Assistarrt Controller passes al order on lile granting the patent. W'orrtittg af the Jinal orcler granting patent

¶57There is oue other zrspect which lequires.to be a.dver(ecl ttl. r,vlric:lr is t'he wording of the order granting patent. The ControlJel should pass tlrc 'final order'saying that "the pa.tent is hereby gl'atttecl" ottly itller irll amendineflts have been carried out to the satisfaction of tJrc Corrtrollcr' lry tlie 'applicant. The Controller wiii, therefble, not clispose oi' llie applicatiol or pass a final order tiil sLrch tiure the Appticarrt lras no( carried out the.amendureuts to tlre sb.tisfa.ction of the Corrtloller'. lt rvill have to be a time-6orurd or-cier for that prrpose. A laJlure to carly orrl tlrc a,rt.ndrn.nt to the specificaiiou as directecl by the ContloJJcr or z\ssistnrrl Controller within the tinre granted might lesult in rejeotion of'llrc palelrI ' )' u4rich contingelrcy is covered nncler S. 15 of the Act.. Flncing the digital$ siglunrl orders..ort tlrc net

¶58In order to tniuintise any unrlecessary tirne-ga1l betrveon Ilrc signirrg by the ContrOller or Assistant ControlJer of the iinal orcler grantirrg . .pa.tent an$ the 'publishing' of snch order, it is clirectecl that ever'1, Ilnal orcler gla.nting the pa.tenf p,assed bl, the. Controller or-the'Assi.starrt. Controller, as the case ruay b*, shoulci be cligita.lly sigrrcrl 'b1r tlrc Controller or the Assistant Controller ancl placecl ort tlie rrycbsitc ol'tlrc llll,P.(C) Nos. 9575, 3.577,5422, S4ZJ,..of Z0gZ & t0ggg, 10400 & j"0450 of 2009 & t0Z0 crf Z7t0 page Jt2 ol4tJ 6/tl Control.ler on the vQrJr 52pe day without B.l1.1r 111,,l"cesSat'y dcliry. 'l'hc procedure in this legar-cl be strearulinecl for being folloiryerl trlrilirrrnlv [v all the officers and necessary instructjons/practice. direcl,ions shorrltl Lrc issued by the Controller. Itigltts of ltost-grmfi opposers protucted

¶59Tlie rights of such of those post-grant opposels wlto at'e L)et-s()trs 'inter:ested' are'sufficiently protected under Section 25(2) fjirrce tlrc per:iod of lirnitation for filing a post-graut opposition is one ntonlll "li'1;rtt the date of publication of grant of a pa.tent", the legislattn'e ltas. tlterclilrc. aireacly talcen care of the iirterests of the post-graut opposers irtttl trtatlc the'period of limitationi-un only from the ciate of pubUcaiiorr ttf the gr:irrrt of patent which is expectecl to take place in terms ol'Sectror t rl?, (2)ol'thc Act. '

¶60It must be underctood that prior to the amendrnent irr Ser;{iurr 2.'i irr tlre year 2005, evelt a pre-grant opposition coulct be lilecl orrly Lry irrr-1, per'3on 'interested'.'ft is onlj' a].ter the amenclurer.rt irl 2005 tlrat art_y person can row file the pre-grant opposition. The Act, lltereftrre, tttal<eli a distinction between uin. opposer o, OrU stage of pr-e-griurt ollposiliorr, u,lio cotrld be 'any' pelson, and the opposer at the post-gra.nt stng,c, wlto r:ould only be a'person interested'. f'he legislative iiltent is tlrlt thc liglrt to file a post-grant opposition under Section 25 (2) is restricterl to ittry person.interested. The fact thal the restrici.ion o1'the tinte Lo {ilc a ;rr.c-grant which results fi-on the interpretaJion given bl, this r;t.rut'( lnir.v 14/ P (:) Nos. 3576, 3517,s422-,,542i of 2.007 & 10399, 70400 & 70450 of .200t " ::;:"{rr:;:, a 6x' . irnpu"t the two classes of pre-graut opposers diffcrently rsr iolrsjslcrrl r,r'i{lr the above distinction. ..:

¶61\Mrile re'stricting the tilue periocl for filing a pre-g'ant opltosiLirltr (o tiie tirne tvhen such patent is granted ma), incortvetrietice "1111v 1lerst.rll" u,ho wishes to file a pre-grant o1:position, it is certainly trot p,oirrg to '.inbonvenience a "person interested". Everl if such 'irttot'esterl" pcrsorl ' .misses t]:e bus at the pre-grant stage, the light of such person tu tllrpit..re at the post-grant stage is presen,ed nncler Sectiorj'2-5 (2) ol-lhe Ar:t. ' Therefore, the interpretation pla.cecl by this Coult certairrll, c.anrrol plejuclice a pdrson'interested in opposins.the graut of paterrt. As reglrlrls any llelSon, other than a Jlerson. iuterested, the legrslativc irrtcrrt irplliirrs to restrict the scope of sucli person confinecl to the stage .rJ'prc-g,r'anl. lt woulcl bg neces.sary, therefcre, for'such person (rvho llro-y rrot be an 'tntetested' person) to be vigilant ancl to watch out lclr the clatc ol' advdrtisentent of the complete .specification and understa.ncl tha.t thc iirnitation for filirrg a pre-grant opposition begins to lurr li-onr tlrut r.late ortrvards. N yd to t{.is c o u t' nge, fi lirtg o.f s er i,a I op 1t o s i,ti.o ns . a4 a , 02 Accepttng tire subrnissions o1'pre-grant opposers in the pr-cserrt ba{clr of cases. that till such tiine the plant of pa.tent is nol eutclctl irr thc 'hRegtster, and notwithstanding that'trn order lias ah'eacly becrr lrasrsecl orr file b1' the Controller gla.nting a'1:a.terrt, they 6a11 oolltinrie tc {llc (he prc-grant represeutations in Lerurs of Sec'.tiotr 25 (l) rrriglrt rcsult irr thc W-P-(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,54'22, 542i af 2007 & 10399, 70400 & 7045A of 2009 & 1020 of 201{l poge ltd <tf 4{) AO DJ) phenomenon of "serial gppositions', as has.happened itr llte t;ttsic ol'tlrc applications filed.opposing the pateuts appliecl {br bir .l [Vlitrrr &. Cornpany. Within a day after the ControJler ieiectecl the lrre-grirttl oppo$ition filed bl, SDL, Dr. Gupte filecl a pre-grant o;:posi(iorr ljttott therealter Dr. Rindani filed his pre-gralt oppositiorr. llr otlrel' rvol'cls" il ' this Court were to hold that the cla.te of the granl ol'lratent is otrly llrc tl;rte o1 which the facturn of such grant is entered in tire ltegislel'. tlrcrr (ltct'c ' rvould be no encl to filing of pre-grant oppositions as long as on itcc'ottttl of some delay. on tire adrninistrative side tire fa.ctuut ol'glaltt rll'llatcltt .it; not entered in thc Register. Givgn the scheuie of the Act, irnd Ilre rrLrrritrcr' .of hurdles an appli"uoi fbr glalt of apa.tent has to orrerconrc, eveu il'tlre applica.tion is founcl to be 'in orcler fbr grant', it is not possiblc lo ac:cept tire interpretation put forth by the pre-grant opposers.

¶63Then we have orle lnor-e situa.tiori as in the case of 'Iibotec. 'l'he rrrclc oornmunipation by the ControfJer to the applicant lbr-gra.nt o1'pzrterut Iirirl the appllcation has beeu' found iu order subject. of qourse io (lre rlecir;iun ol1 pre-grant opiiosition, if any fif9d, cannot be csnstr.uerl as lhc t;l'liciirl Cecision of tire C.ontroller granting the pa.tent. l"here has to lrc irrr orrlcr' on file passecl by.the Conti'oiler-holcling tha.t the pateut hirs lrecn lorurd irr order and that patent is gtantecl. Until ancl iurless suolr an or-clcr is passetl on file, it cannot be said th.at the patent has been'gr-auted. 6;i-. In adopting the'above interpretation of'Section provisions of tlie Act tliis Conr[ has kept in W.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 35:17,5422, 5423 of 2007 8L:t0399, 10400 & 70450'of Z00g & 70ZO of 2070 page 35 af 40 43 a.rrr.l olltcr rcliitccl i'iew tlro lirllowirrg RV 'r I ; olrservations of the Supretne cottrt in En{ct'tahtnrcnt Atefuryt'h. (fnrtia) v; Super Cassette Infutstries [,td. (2005) ]J ^ECC 30, itt paras l-]7 139, tvhich thougir made in the context of the Cop1,p[g11t Ac[ nttr], urell hpply to the pr-esent cases as u'ell: ' "I3J. Furlhermore,' tlte cottrt while inter,pr-eting ir statute will put itseJf in the artttchajt oI il'. reasonable legislature, a.lI statntes mltst be presuntetl .. to be reasonable. It is irow trite Iaw that literal inteqp4etation shoulcl be avoiclecl rvlierr it leacls tii absurdity... ...

¶139.In Lhis case, ltowevet', the utealtittg ol' thc statute is'neither clear nor sensible. lt is a statute where a purposive cousfrdction is rnra.u-a.ntecl. lt is a case wherle sub-section'(2) should be l<ept couf inecl to clause (a) for that.putl:ose. Ihe sta.tute has to bc . rea.d down. It is not a ca.se of improper interpolation so as to take ar^/ay a primary pru?ose ol' tlrc legislative iutent. It is expedient to give ell'ect to thc , intent of the statute. This itself says that creases oall be'ironed out. While undeflal.irL tn. saicl exercise, the Court's endeavour would be to give a. nlea.rring tcr the provisions ancl uot render it otiose. . . . )''

¶65This cor"ut, .for the aforenentioned reasolts, holc{s that firt tlrc pl-t{poses of Section 43 (1) bf the Act, the patent is 'glanted' orr tlrc: clalc on which the Controller passes a linal order to tirnt ell"ect on the l'ile. Cortclnsions: First set of petitions 66, The facts in the first set of petitions have alreac[1,'beerr disc,'rr.,i the first set of petitions, the order clated 23'd August 2006 passrccl lry w,P.(c)Nos.3576, i577,5422,542-3 of 2007 & 10ssg, 70400 & U)ASO o7 ZOOq & 7020 uf 201t) ltoge 36 of 4O Ltd". and Itr the ef/ Coptroller, while disrnissing tire p.re-graut oppositiolr thaL *l lrcrclry ttrtlct' I to grant. pateut (Patent NTo. 194638) o]. balch. A;lPlit:irtittrr Nlo' .5.93/DeI/2000" mu.st be 1,ahen lo be the clate ou r,r,hich l.ltc Pa{.c:tr{ rvas graltecl. Althor-rgh, as pointed out by learrrccl cotrnscl lbr thc l)etiLiottct'ri, the said. orcler 4equires the applicant.(.LMiU'a & Co.) kr atncrrtl tlrc specification to include a cross relbrence, it cloes uoL trraterialli.' ill'f-ecL tlrc fa.ctum of tite gr.ant of iratent. The factthat it rvas etttet'ecl iir Llrc ll.egistcr' on22"'L September 2006' wculd not rnake any dilTelctice to llris posit.ir.li. 'Further the statement by J.Mitra & Co. in the piaint in Cl.li. (t)$j)Nlo.2t)21) o'f 2006 that the paierit \4/as granteit on 22"d Septetrber 200(t. tvoLtlcl alsrtr got make a cliffbrence to the position in Jair,. The clale <lJl,1,s'g1r'arLl ol'lhc patent in question to J.Mitra & Co.'should be tal<eri as 23''r ,'\Lrg5rrsl 20tXr.

¶67Conseq.uently, ally pre-grant oppositjon filecl after 23rcl AL.rgtrr;t ,]()0(r was clearly banecl under Sqction 25 (1) of thE Act. 'l'hcrelirrc tlrc irnpugnecl orders of the Controller rejecting the pre-.gretttl o1rlto.siliotrs fi.led by the petitioners ale Valid ancl clo not call lbl inler tbletrc().

¶68jrTotrvithstancling tire above conclusiott, tltis Ccir-rtl als;o holcls lhal. llrcr filing of pre-grant opposition by Dr. Gupte aud Dr. Itiriclarti nttbscc.ltrctri. to Z3'''tAugust 2006was, apart fiom being not tlaiutaittabJc itl liLtr,, alstr . an abuse of the process of law. This Court is noi cotrvitrocd ol'thc bonaficles of 'either of the Petitionels..There hars troL been atly cl-lbt:l.irrt: clenial of the fact that both Petitioners were associatecl with Sil)1, in 'si()r'rrc capacity or the oth'er. It is impos,sible to cotnpreirend that cjtlrct' ol: {ltc.st: W.p.(C) Nos, JS1"G, gS17,5422-, 5423 of 2007 Btr 70ggg, L0400 & L0450.of 20:09 & L0'7-0 of 201.0 page 37 a.[ 40 f,e, Petitioners was unaware of the fact that the filing o['lhr: pt'c-grittr{. opposition .b1, SDL or of the fact Lhat it has lreert tul<ett Lll) [irr' ' consideration by the Controller of Patents or of the I'act tha[ tlt.c t.rt'clct'ott sr-rch pre-grant opposition were pencling. u ''

¶69Even according. to these Petitioners, the r;<lrlnrr.rnit-1, ol' llrosc ' interestecl in the cleveloprnen[ of the test kits is a. surall ole eurrl evcry s(cp taken by each comiretitor woulcl be lcrrown to Lhe other. 'l'his its;cil'trclicri the fact that eitirer Dr. Gqrte or-Dr'. Rinclarni \,vas Lnri.r\,r,arc ol'llre P'e-. grant oppo'sitions alreacly filecl by SDL in rela.tion l.o LIrc lrutcrr( . applications of .I. Mitra & Compalty. Given the long history ol'liLigalion between the parties, it creates frrrlher cloubts on thc bona.liclcs ol-llrcrse two Petitioners. L

¶70For all of tire above reasolls, this Court hncts absolr-rtcl1, rro rrrerit. in tlre four Writ Petition (C) Nos.35 16,,3517,5422 an<l 52123 ol'2007 in tlrc first set ancl they.are clisrnissecl with costs of Rs.20,000/- eactr rryhich r,r,ill be paicl by eacir of the Petitionels to J. Mitra & Co. urirlrin a pcli.od ol- ,: four rveeks. Comilusiorzs: Secontl set of Xte.ti.f.i.ons

71.In the seconcl set of petitions-by Zephyr, the patcnt in lirvou' ol'l,rrlit A4ahajan was grantecl ancl sealecl on 16tr'October ZtiOil rvlrelcas. Llrc prc-grant opposition was filed in one case on 2Bt" November'2008 arrcl irr hvtr other cases on 1Ztl' Decetrber 2008. There can be no nrauncr ol'cloutrt that the filin.g of such pre-grant oppositiou was subseclrrerrL l.o llrrr gratrl. of- 'W.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007'81 703gg, L0400 & 70450 of 2009 & JO20 of 2010 . poge 38 of 40 - --'-'-' 6f -/ patent ancl was baured nncler Section 25(I) ol' the Acl.' 'l.lrcrc is absolutely, therefore, llo efl'or in the orders passecl by 1he. L'otttt'ollcr rejecting the pr e-grant oppositions.

¶72The three Wr-it Petition (C) Nos. 10399, clisrnissecl rvith costs of Rs. 20.000/- each Petitioner Zephyr to Respondent No.1 Lalit I0400 ancl 10450 ol'2009 rire 'rvhich vrrill bo pairl lty tlre Mahala.n riithirr. ftrrrr rvccks fi'om toda.y. Comclasions in t{trit. Fetitiort (C) No. 1020 oJ-2010

73.InvieW of what has been helcl aborze, tlre oourrnuuitu.tiorr tlirtct.l 2[1tl' March 2008 written by the Controller to the Petitionet' cnnnot. [re: Jrcltl to be the date of gryry of the patent. It was merell, a coullnunic,;rtiorr statirrg that the application has.been fou:rd in order.[or gra.nt.. Il i:r rrcll.;rn rlrrlcl' to grant. patent. Therelbre, when the pre-grant o1:1-rosition rvas lilccl lt1, C.ipla Ltd on 26tr'June 2008 tirere was no grant oIpatetrt by tlraL rlatr: iurrl, .. ; thet'etbte, suqh application Was rnaintainable in teruts o1'ljectir:rr 25( l) ol' 0re Act. Although,there is an observation b1, 1J1e Controller tlrat aljcr'.J0rl'' May 2008 there was no legal irrqreclirnent in the.Controller'11,,ssi,,g,,,' order for grant of patent becanse on that date,ih"r" \/as no l)r'e-Brlnt oppositioU, the.fact remains tliat on file tro such olcler was ;.lirssccl. lt '(' canuot, therefore, be said that the filing o{'.the pre-grarrt o1)1tosiliorr orr 26tl'June 2008 by Cipla was time bar-r'ed.

14.. There is. yet another W.P.(C) Nos.3576, 3577,5422, 5423 grouncl for not entertaiiting the plca ol' llrc of 2007 & .LO394 X0400 & 7O4sO of 2009 & Lozo of 7.07{) r page 39 af 40 €('t $, - pcr.itio'cr. 'l'he challenge is to an orcler refusing the grant of patent rvhich is'reln{.able Lp Sec[ion 15 o.f the Act. This is appealable befole the [P'AB .rrrrcler Seclion l17n of the Act as has been helct by Ll'ris Cotr|t tn IJC\J .IT,arclr.inrSa p" Clprto Ltd" 1.67 (2010) DLT 459'

¶75[tor the albretlentioned reasons, the cosl.s o['11s.20,000/- rryhich will be paicl Clillla Ltcl. rvithin for"rr weeks' writ petition is clisnissec'! wi{.lr by the PetiLioner. to Respotrclenl' Conlroller c'J' .D i r e ct i tt ttl; t o' th e. C o ntr o l. l.er of P ate n ts ,76. l.he con[roller of patents rvili, withil a period of two weeics fl-otrr toclalr issue necessary practice clirections/instruclions to'ali oJ.llccrs aucL "oo".,.n"d ar.rthorities in terrns of tliis jucl$ment ancl particutortv in terms ti['wha[ 'has been helcl by this CoLrrt in paras 55 to 58 thcreol'' Strch' . prlctice clir-ecliols/ ilstrr-rctions rvill also be placecl silrultarreorrsly cln the wr:bsi,te ol. flre. Controller of Patents. 'fhey will be prospecl'ive in the .sense tliey rvill not result in the reopening'of orclers granting Patent [hai' have altaiued tinalitY' 7].^certifioclcopyoftlrisorclerwiltbecleliver.eclLotlre PatetiLsbyaspecia,lrnesseng"'fo''thwithforcompliance' . rr. , .i' .: \-----t " s " MrJ[tAI, I D trtr AXt,.' . .tr ttLv x 5, 2010 cln VV.P.(C) Nos-3516, 9517,5422' 5423 of 2007 & l0ggg' 70400 & 70450 of 2009 " ;:r:"":r':;:, ! t ^ f4tl4, c'vl I il,f, I lo l'( €;tfetaeit'A 4 {i*c (y: S4 vdt^ t )'

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