Zephyr Biomedicals v. Lalit Mahajan & Anr

ORDER

15.07.2010 -=-\ .' In terms of the common judgment rendered today in Writ Petition (Civil) 351612007 titled "Dr. (Miss) snehlatu c. Gupte v. (Inion of India & ors" along with eight connected writ petitions, this writ petition is dismissed with 8* 'v I ('' -*, costs.of Rs. 20,000/- which will be paid by the Petitioner to Respondent No. 1 Lalit Mahajan within a period of four weeks. A copy of the judgment passed in w.P. (c) No. 3516 of 2007 be placed forthwith on the file. I-ra_1 S. MURALIDHAR, J JULY 15, 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. tN 'tllll III(;ll COURT Olr DI'ILIII AT' NIi\\/ Dltl,lIl Il'eserved ou: .Z9tl' April and -i"l Jtrnc, 201 0 l)ccisiorr ou: I -5"' July, ?.0l() . W.l'. (C) No.3516 ol'40(|7 l)l{. (Nliss) SNI'llll,n'fA C. (;tJl']'l'l: ..... l'ctitiottcr 'l'hlough: Mr. l'ravin Anantl ancl Mr. J. Sagar with Mr'. Sagat' (ihalttha, Atlvocatcs. VCISUS IJNION OII INI)IA & Oi{S. ..... I{cspotttlcttts 'I'hrouglr: Mr. l{uclrir M ishra with Mr. ltahulJain. Advocirtcs fbr l{-l to lt-zl. Ms. Pratibha M. Singlr, Advocatc {irr l{--5. W.P. (C) No.35l7 ol'2(f(17 l)Tt. (Miss) SNI')IILAI'A C. GtII'l'li ..... Pctitiorrcr' Through: Mr. Pravin Anand and Mr. -1. Sagar with Mr. Sagat Charrclra, Aclvocal"cs. f1 VCI'SUS TJNION OII INJ)IA & ORS. ..... Rcspoltdcnts 8, ) 'fhrough: Mr. l{uchir Mishla u'ith Mr. I{ahul Jaitr, Aclvocatcs lbr J{-l to It-4. Ms. Platibhat M. Singlr, A<lvocate lor l{--5. W.l'. (C) No. 5422 ol 2007 DIt. CIRISII J. I{INDANI ..... l)ctitioncr 'l'hrough:Mr. Pravitr Anancl and Mt..l. Sagar with Mr. Sagar Chandra, Advocatcs. vol'sLls TJNION O].'IN])IA & OI{S. ..... llcsporrtlents 'l'ltror.rgh: Mr. lhrchir Mislrra witlr Mr. ll.alul Jain, Aclvocittcs lilr It-l to li-4. Ms. L'raLibhtr M. Singh, Atlvocatc ftrr l{--5-W.P. (C) No.5423 of 20(17 l)lt. (Miss) SNljlll.A'l'A C. Glll'l'll ""' f)ctitiorrer 'l'hrough: Mr. Pravin Anand ancl Mr' J. Sagar . with Mr. Sagar C'ltanclra, Aclvocates. W.P.(C) Nos.3576,3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70399,70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 7020 of 2070 poge 7 ol 40 vcISuS I n AA IJNION Ol; INDIA & OltS. ..... ltcsporrdcrrLs ! ( t 'l'hrough: Mr. l{rrchil Mishra with I . Mr. l{ahul .lain, Advocatcs fbt l{-l to l{-4. I Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Aclvocatc lor l{-.5. W.l'. (C) No. 10399 of 2()l)9 ZIII'IIYI{ I}lOMltl)I(IALS Pctitioncr 'l'lu'ough: Mr. Saniccv Kuutar'l'iwari, Atlvocatc. VETSUS Lnl,l'l'Mn tlnJAN & ANI{. .....l{cspon<lcrrts "l'hrouglr: Mr. Marrinclcr Singlt, Scrtior AclvocaLe with Ms. Saya Clrauclhary antl Mr. .f asprcct Singh, Atlvocatc fbr I{-1. Mr. A.S. Chanclhiok, ASG with Mr. .Tatan Singh, C(iSC for lt-2. :1 W-P. ((l) No. l{)4110 ol'2009 ZIIPIIYI{ BIOMJII)ICALS ..... Petitioncr 'I'h rough : Mr. San j ecv l(rtrtrar'I'i r.r'ari, Aclvocatc. versus LAl.l'l'Mn IlnJnN & ANI{. ..... licspontlctrts ' 'l'hrough: Ms. Saya Chautlhary and Mr. .lasprcct Singh, Advocatc {br l{-1. Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, AS(l rvith Mr. Jatan Sirrglt, CGSC {or I{-2. W.P. ((l) No. 10450 of 2009 t/)'\-' zJlptryRIlIOMJiDlcALS ..... Petitio.er 1'hrough: Mr. Saniccv Kular'l'i'uvari, Advocatc. versus Lnl-l'l'Mnl IAJAN & nNI{. ..... ltcspondcnts 'l'hrouglr: Mr. Mauindor Singlr, Scnior Advocate with Ms. Saya Chauilltary and Mr. w.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, s423 oJ 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 70450 oI 20og &.7020 of 2070 poge 2 ol 40 Jaspreet Sirrgh, Ach,ocats lil'lt-I . Mr. A.S. (ihanrlhiok. AS(i rvith Mr-..lal.an Singlr, Advocatc for l{-2. ANI) W.l'. (O) No. 1020 ol20lt) TIIIOTIjC PllAl(MAClllJTtCN.S Pctitiottcr 'fhrouglr; Mr. l{aiiv Nayyar atrcl Mr. Sudhir " Nandrajog, Scnior Aclvocatcs lvith Mr. I'ragyau l'radip Shamra and Mr. l{upcsh (iu1rta, Advocatcs. VCTSUS 'ffll: n SSIS'l'nNl' CONlltOl,Llilt Ol; Pn'l'liN'l'S, I)IISIGNS &'fl(ADli Mn l{KS & Ol{S. ..... l{cspondcrrts 'l'hrough: Mr. A.K. l)hardlvari with Ms. Jagrati Singh, Aclvooates for I{-l & I{-2. Mt. S. Majrurrclat'ivil"lt Mr. Saurabh Bancrjcc, Atlvocatc ior I{-3. COIIAM: JUSTICII S. MIII{ALIDIIAIT l. Whcthcr rcpotlct's ol'local papol' nlay bc allorvcd to sco thc.ittdgnrcnt? Ycs

¶2'l'o bc ref-erred to the reportcr or n<lL'? Ycs

¶3Whether thc jtrtlgnrent slrould l;c rcl'ct'rccl irt thc digcst? Ycs .IUD(}MIiN'I' l. 'l'hc short but intcrcstirrg clttcstiott of' larv col'l'tlllol'r to all tlrcsc pctitiorrs: When can a patent be said to be grarrled ttndcr tltc I)atcnts Act, 1970 ('Act')? 'fhc qucstion adscs iu thc cotrtcxt oi'thc <lisulissal of prc-l: grant oppositions lty thc Controllcr of Patcuts ('Oontrollcr') on thc ground that thcy werc timc-lratrcd undcr Scction 2l <tI thc Act. 2-. 'l'lre factual backgrountl itt cach sct of'1:ctitiotrs is tteccssury ttl bc sct out in ordcr to apprcciatc lrou, thc qncstion ariscs ftrr tlctcrutinatiott itr w.P.(C) Nos. 3s76, 3577,5422, 5423 oJ 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 7o45o of 2009 & 7020 of 2o7o page 3 ol 40 ?\ ,| cach of thcn. (l'rit Petition (C) Nos. 35t6, 3517, 5422 und 5423 of 2007 (l'' Set oJ' Petitiorts)

¶3J. Mitra & Cornpany [tcsponclcttl.No.5 irr W.P. ((]) No. 3-51(t <>l'200-1 Ijlccl two partcnt Application Nos. 590/J)c112000 and 593/J)cll2000 itr thc Officc ol'thc (lontrollcl on 14'l' .lunc 2000. 'lhc patcrt spccilications involvccl in thc two applications lvcrc publishccl in tltc oliicial Bazcttc oll 20'r' Novcnrbcr 2004 itr tet'tns ol' Scctitltr I lA of thc Act. At that stagc, Scction 25 ol'tlre Act had trot beetr atnenrled. ljrrdcr Scctiott 25 of'thc pre-arncnclccl Act, au opposition to thc grant ol patelrt hacl to bc fjlcd rvithin lbur tnonths Iiotu that clay i.c., thc datc of aclvcrtisctncut (publication) which pcriocl cor.rlcl bc cxtcndcd by orrc tnon{lt upon tltc Controllcr lrcing satislicd by thc rcasons givcn lbr'such dclay.

¶4Span l)iagnostics Ltcl. ('SJ)L') titcd a prc-grant opllgsition r\'hich caurc t0 bc rcjcctccl lty thc (loutroller orr 2.]"l Augrrst 2-00(r. 'l-ho glreral.ivc pot'tiott tl{'thc ordsr passccl by thc C'orrtrollcr rcads as ttttder: "ln vicw ol'thc abovc discttssion and in consiclcration o{'tltc subtnissions of'both thc partics. I hcrcby orclor to grant l'l'atcut No. 194639 | on I'atont.Al4rlication No. 59 0 I D cl I 200 0 rvi th thc I ollou'ing conclitiou : 'fhr: Applicants shall give cross refcrsncc to tltc patcut application r1o. 593/J)c1i2000 on pagc 2 ol' thc complete specilication aud strbmit tltc arncnded/retyped page(s) within a rveck {iortr thc tlatc of these order. 'l'lre Opposition otr l)atctrt Applicatiorr No. -590/Dcl/2000 (1946:i9) is tlispttse<l o{' irr al>ovc w.p.(c) Nos. zsle, islt,srtzz, 5423 ol 2007 & 7o3gg, 7o4oo & 70450 of 2009 & 1020 ol 2070 page 4 ol 40 ?\ ,u0 t^ l.enns. No older tt) cost."

¶5frr terms of Section 43 of the Act, wltcrc tltc allltlicatiotl {br a pntellt has bccrr lbund [o be itr orcler for grant of patent atrd if the applicttion has cithcl not bccu rcltrscd by thc Controllcr or has not bccn lbund in contlavcnlion of thc Act, thc patcnt shall bc grantccl as cxllcditi<lusly as possiblc "with thc scal o1'thc patcnt ollicc and thc tlatc on rvltich tlrc patcnt is grantcd shall bc cntolcd in thc I{cgistcr". lJttdcr Scction 43(2), upon thc grarrt of'patelrt, tlre (lontrollcr "shall pulllish tlrc firct tlrat tltc patcltt has beeu grantcd and thelculton thc applicatiou, spccilication atrtl othcr docunrcuts rclatcd tltcrcto shall bc opcn (or putrlic itrspcctiotr". lJnclcr ltulc 55(5) of thc l']atcnts l{ulcs 2003 ('l(ulcs'), thc (lonttollcr u,ill cxarninc thc statcmcut and cviclcncc filccl by thc applicatll (lbr thc griutt of patont) and uray cithcr rclirse to glant thc patout or rcquilo tltc c<lmltlete specification t"o be an.rendcd to his satislirotiotr ltclirrc thc pateut is grautcd. IIndcr l{ule 55,(6), tlre (]ontrtlller shall, allcr ctlnsiclcrittg thc 'rcprcscntation (i.c. thc prc-gratrt opllosition, i1' any) attd sttlltttissions lraclc clgrirTg thc hcaring il'so rcclucstccl, "proccc{l firrthcr sitrrultarrctlr.rsly cithcr rojcctirrg thc rcprcscntation alld gralltirrg the 1;al"eltl tlr acceptittli thc rcprcscntation and rclusing thc grant tlf' llatcnt olr that applicatitln, or:tiinarily within 'otrc ttrotrth [i'om lhc con4:lctiorr of thc al>ovc pr0c0cdings". Cr. ll, is thc casc of thc l{cspouclcnt'No.5 J. Mitra & (l<1. that rvhcn ott 23"' August 2006 thc (}rrrtlollor rcjcctcd tltc pt-c-grant opprlsitiorr {ilcd by w.P.(C) Nos.3s76,3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70399, 704oo & 7o4s0 ol 2009 & 7020 of 2070 pogc 5 of 4O I p a (- Sl)1, ancl in lact in tlte txcler usecl the rvor-tls "l hcrcby ordcr to grattt paterrt...", this rvas situulttuleous with the rejectitltr rll' tlrc prc-.grilnt oppositiou irr tclnrs of'l{ule 55(6) of the l{rtles antl, tltct'c(ilt't:,2.3"tAugust 2006 was thc datc on which thc patcrrt was grarrtctl to .1. Mitra & (lonrpany.

¶7On thc vcry noxt day, i.c. 24'r' Augttst 2006 J)r'. Snchlata (it4rtc, thc Pctitiorrcr irr W.I'. (O) No. 3-5 t6 of'2007, filc<l a prc-grant o1:positiorr vrs' cr-yi.s Patenl No. I 94639 filcd by .1. Mitra & Ctl. According to 'l)r. (irrptt:. in tcrurs of'thc arrctrdurcuts introducecl itr section 2-5(l) ol thc Act by rvay of'tlrc Patcnts (Atrouchrcnt) nct,2005 rvitlr cllbct {ionr l".lanuary 2005, thc tinrc pcriod for liling a prc-grant opposition stootl oxtottrlcd till thc grirnt of thc patcnt. According to thc I'ctitioncr, thc patont was llot grantccl till such timc it was not scalccl aud'cntcrcd irr tho Ilcgistcr in temrs of Scction a3(l) of thc Act. [t is stated thal. as on lhc datc of ths lilirrg of thc prc-grant op1:osition by I)r. (hqrto., i.e-24"'August 2006, thc patcut iu fhvour of'J. Mitr-a & Conrpany had tttlt bcctl gratrtctl sincc it had not yct bccn scalccl antl cutct-ccl irr thc l{cgistcr. ll. on 5'r, scptcrnbcr 2006, J)r. (iirish l{inrlani, thc l,ctitiouc| irr writ Pctiriorr (c) No. 5422 0L 200'/ Llled a prc-graul oppositio.u vis-ii-vis thc patcnt application of J.Mitra & Co..

¶9lt is not in clispute that tlte l)atcntNo. l946llt3 grertrtcd to.l. Mitra & (lorlparry rvas cntcrcd in thc Itcgister ott 2.2"" Scptcnlbcr 2006. l)ttcnt w.p.(c) Nos.3576,3577,s422, s423 ol 2OO7 & 7[3gg, 70400 & 10450 oi 2O0s & 7020 of 2070 poge 6 of 40 d/ f1 ?* No. lgrl(r39 glantccl to it rvas erttercd irr the l{eg,istcr olr 27"'scptctttbcr 2006. Certi(icrl copics of'thc rolcvatrt cntries in thc ltegisl.t:r havc bcctt placc(l on rccor(I. In tcrurs of Scction 4ll(2) oi the Act, thc said trto pctitiorrs o{'.1. Mitla & Oorrrpany wcrc publislrccl in tlrc .lottnral o('lltc l)atcnt Ot'ticc datcd l7'r' Novcnrbcr 2006.

¶10on l6'r' octobcr . 2006, tho prc-gfant Oltposition oJ' l:otli J)ctitit>ncls were rejected by [hc Controllcr on thc g.routtd ol'ttraitttainirbility. 'l'his rvas rlouc, hou,cver, rvithout a{'fbrding thc turo Petitiortcru att tDportttttity 0l lteing lreaxl. On .ll'' Oc;tobcr 2.006, both f)cl"itioucrs wrotO to the Coutrollcr scoking a lrcaring bclbrc rcjcction ol' thc pfc-grarlt oppositions. On 23"r .lanuaty 2007, thc Controllcr grirntctl thc I'ctitioncrs a hcari'g. 'l-hcrcallcr on 30'r' April 2007 and 3"' May 2007, rvrittcn statcnlonts wclc l'ilctl and SubmiSSitltrS ,vcLc itdvancr:tl by t:tltlr tlrc Pctitioncm bclbrc thc Corrtrollcr. I l. writ Peritiorr (o) NOs. 3.516 anrl 3.517 of 2007 rvcrc (ilccl by I)r. Snclrlata Ggptc challcngiug tlrc orclcr clatod 16"' Octobcr 2006 rvith rcf'crcrrce to thc l)ateul-No..194639 and 194638 respectivcly. on ?-2"'l May 2.007, thc Controllcr passccl {icslt Ordcls lcjccting thc prc-grant opltgsitions of thc Pctitionors on thc grortnd tlrat tlts tlplltlsitions wclc tinrc-barrccl. Iloth Pctitioucrs i.c. Dr. ltindani and J)r. Guptc clrallcngcd tlre said'orcJer clatecl 22"'t Mtty 2007I'ty liling writ [)eLitiorr (o) Nos. .5422 arrd -5423 of 2007 respectivelY. W.P.(C) Nos.3516,3517,s422, s423 of 2007 & 70399,70400 & 70450 ol 2009 & 7020 ol 2070 Poge 7 ol 40 ?{/ r4 + Q

12.'l'tre al:ovcpctitiotts ltavc bcctt rcsistccl lly l(es;lontlcrrtNtl..5.l. Mitra & Co. [t is contcnclcd tlrat tho orcler oIthe (.'urrtr<lllel rvas cortsisLcttl. rvitlt thc con'cct p<lsitiou iu larv. Accorrling t<l l{csltonclcnt Ntl..5, the filing, tll' thc two prc-graltt oppositions by I)r. Guptc arrcl l)r. l{irrdani wits alstl art abusc of thc ploccss of larv. It is allcgcd by J. Mitla & ('o. that SJ)L, which is in thc busincss of salc alttl pr.trchasc o1'varions 1:harrl'raccuticals prociucts, is a habitual inli'ingcr and is dclitrcratcly ancl coltsciously violating various intcllcctual propcrtics o{'.1. Mitra & (ltl. SI)1, is allcgcd to bc corrtirruing to iufiirrge thc riglrts of-l{esponclent Ntl..5 rvith irtrpruiity. IL is conLeudcrl l"hart each and cvery procluct itt respect <l{'tvlrich J. MitliL & (b. has applicd filr ancl/or has bccn .r;rarrtcd a patcrrt is cithcr bcirrg opposccl or inli'ingccl by SI)L.

¶13l'}atcnt No. l9436tt is lbr an itrvctrtiou titlcd "A l)cvicc lbr. tlrc cletcction of antillodics ol'llepertitis (] virus in ltuurain scrulu aud pla.stna". I)atcntNo. 194639 is ltlr irn invcution titled "A device ftrr the dctcctiott 9f I lcpatitis O vinrs". Alter tlre grant of'thc a(irrcnrcntiotrctl patcnts irt its Itrvour-,.1. Mitra & (lo..fjlcd Oivil Suit (OS) No. 2.2.02-0 of'20(Xi irr tltis Oourt agairrst Kcsar Msnclicanrents (KM) antl Sl)1, lor patcnt inli-ingcnrcnt. t3y a jutlgnrcn! <latctl 22"'r .Lcbluary 200t3, this (}lr"u1 glantcd an injunction rcstfailtillg KM antl SJ)L lrotn tnaurtfitctttlittg, sclling, olTcring lbr salc thcir llOV Sigual ot any otltcr product which was in inli'ingetncu{. of .1. Mitra & Co's PatcnLNo. l9463ti-It is statcd that in the said suit ST)1, has filetl a couuter clairtr lor rcv<lcatiorr ttf the piltcllt. W.P.(C) Nos. i576, 9577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 70450 of 2'009 & 7020 oI 2070 pogc I of 40 .F Sultntissions of Corltrscl irt the I" Sct ttJ'petitio,t;'lry.P. (Q No-35.-6 ttf' 2007 etc.J

¶14Appeariug for'.1. Mitra & O<1., Ms.l'ratibha Sing,h, lcarttccl cottttscl, submittcrl that botlr I)r. Snchlata (iupte arrd t)r. l{intlani in't: contrcctcd to Sl)1,. I)r. Guptc is statccl to bc rnrrrriug tlrc Surat Ilaktatlarr Konclt'a, thc (,'hairmarr of rvhich is Mr. I'raclccp K. J)csai rvho is thc (lhainnan/Managing l)ircctol ol' SJ)t,. It is statcd. that l)r. (ittptc was awarc of Sl)L's oppositirln to J. Mitra & Co's patcrtts. Ms. Singh ptlitttctl out Lhat npon tht3 said prc-gralrt oppositiort bciltsl rc.icctcd tltt 2-i"l Att.gttst

2.006 thc patcnt lrad to procccd {ilr rcgistratiotr. Ilowcver, to ctltrtitrrrc the scrial opposiLions, {irsl I)r'.(igpte lilccl a pre-gl'alrt opposititln olr lhc vcly ncxt day i.c. 24't'August 2006. l)r. Itirtclani, rvho is also statctl to bc conncctcd to SDL, lilccl a scparal"c prc-grant tryposititlrr ott 5'r' Scptcntbcr 2006. 'lt is subrnitLod that thc {iling o{'scrial opptlsitions lry pclsons connectcd to SI)L al1er its pfe-grant oppositiotr ltad bcctt lcjectcd rvas nalaficle ancl if such applications wc.rc pcnnittccl ttl bs entertitirtetl, tlterc would lrc uo cnd to the filirrg of such ltrc-glaurt oppositions particularly siucc atisr Llte aurcttcltt].ni tn Scctiorr 25( l) irr 200-5, a prc-llrarrl. opposition can l>c filcd by'any pcrson'. lt is subtnittcd that if'tlrc starrtl <lf'thc l)ctitioncrs is a<;ccptcd, it would tlcfbat tlrc olrjoctivc ol'tlrc Act which is to grant a patcl]l rathcr than rclirsing, it.

¶15Ms. Singh pointed ou[ that in thc rcjoindcr to its colu]tcr affidavit, thc l)ctitioncrs clo not clcuy that t)r. Gultte is cotrlrected Lo SI)1,. It is tinly statccl that snch avcnnct'lts arc rnislcadirrg "atrcl tlrat thcy ltavc tto bcaritrq op t|1c prcscll! casc". lt is lulthcr pointccl out that the petitiorrers cotrtetrtl w.P.(C) Nos.3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70399,70400 & 70450 oJ 2009 & 7020 of 2070 poge 9 of 40 +1 t-A +- in thc rcjointlcr that "it is illtnatcrial ltll tlie putptlscs ol'tltc 1;t'csctrt'writ pctition ,uvhethet a persol'l rvho files il prc-P,rilnt oplltlsititllr is rcctlrdcd ttl rlr rrot rcct)Lclerl rvho is intcrestcd itr thc cotlcct'nctl llatcltt llcirrg oplloscd"'

¶16ltc{'crring to thc clccision in K.D. Sltsrmu (2008) 12 SCC 481, Ms.Singh submittcd that thc Pctitioncrs havc, l'ry uot tlisclosing thcir rclationship with sl)],, not colllc to thc Court with clcan ltands and' ' therelilre are disentitled to thc rclictis prarycd for itt the u'rit peLitiorrs. Itef'cn-ing to the clecisi0ns in lthogwonii Vishuuii T'huhltur v. pr)winchundru,Iivtuthltui pututlitt (tggs) 2 GLR I43B nn(l Ijttl<,rtuirtntent Nehyork (hulia) Ltd-t. supcr cussette Industries-I.td.

(2005) 13 SCC 30 it is snbmittcd that a purposivc constrrtction would ftavc tg bc acloptccl ancl it has to bc hcld that in tcrnts of Jtrrlc 5.5 (fi) ol thc l{ulos rcacl with SccLion 43 (l) oI thc Act tltc patcnt is grantc<l oncc au order to that efltct is passccl by the Oontrollcr sitnultattcous rvith the rc.iectiotr oI thc first sct of prc-grut oppositiols rvhich arc clecided by thc (lorrtrollcr. 'lt is subrnittecl tlrat there has to be att otltcr tilrc lirlit lbr liliug a prc-grant oppositiou whiclr iu arly cvcut callnot l)c l:cyoncl thc clatc of thc Corrtroller passing all ordcr orr lilc grantirrg tlrc patcnt. 'l'hc scalilg agd cntcring of thc paLont in thc l{cgistct'arc nlcl'c trriltistcrial acts rvhiclr urake no clifferencc to thc datc oI tho graut oIthc patot]t.

¶17Ms. Singh rclbrs to an orclcr datcd 2"'r Marcir 2009 passed by thc snl.rrcrnc court irr sl.P (civil) No. 3522 of 2009 (Indian Np.Iworli ltor I'eople nith IllltLlids v. I,'. IloJJinurtn-l.u Roche l(J) which arosc fiotn w.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 7020 of 2o7o poge 70 ol 40 ?Y \^ I { an (xller datecl 30'l' Jattrtary 2009 passcd by thc Assistant (lorttrtlller ol' [)ntcrrts. 'l'his u'as heartl n,ith SLI'((]ivil) No. 2.9857 of 2.00tt filctl agairrst l.lrc .jrrclgnrcut datc<l 2"'l [)ccctitllcr 2-00tj tll' thc Matltas lliglr O<lrrlt rcporlccl as fndiurt Nettpork ltor People with IIlV/lids v. It. Ilo.llinurtn-I,u Rolhe AG MII>R 2009 (2) 0036. lly thc saicl jndgnrcnt thc Matlras Iligh Court sct asidc an orclcr granting Itocllc a patcnt withont disposirrg of t"hc prc-gtant oppositions lilcd lty thc Indian Nctwork lbr l'coplc rvith lilV/Aids uncler SccLion 25(l) of'thc Act. 'l'hcrcallc| by an order dal'etl 30'l' .lanuary 2009, the Assistarrt Ooutroller rcjccl"cd lhc prc-granL opposition. 'l'he Suprenrc Cltlltrt, without going irtttl Lltc tttcrits tlf'the contcrrtions that thc l)ctitioncrs wcrc (lcprivcd ol' irlr opportttuity of' raising bclorc thc (lontrollcr ntrnrcrons sontcntiotrs on Ittct'its, otrscrvctl that lhcy could bc givcn pcrtlissiott to lilc an al'{idavit ancl raisc atl coutcntions at thc stagc of post-glant oppositiotrs ',vhich had alrclrly bccn filed ancl r,'u'crc pcnditrg bcltrrc the (lontroller. On the stt'cngth of tltc abovc orclcr, it is subnrittcd by lcagrcd counscl for.[. Mitra & (]o..that SI)l , itsclt'coukl ljle post-grant opposition bc{ilrc thc (l<lrrtrollcr atrd, thcrc{brc, uo prcjuclicc was cansccl by thc grant of' patcnt tg thc l{cspondcnt No. -5 by thc orrlcr datcrl 23'd August 2006. ln any evcttt, Sl)L 5as also lilocl a countcr-clainr iri thc suit sccking rcvocaltion o['thc patcnt.

¶18Mr. Pravin Alaurcl alxl Mr. J. Sagar, lcarnccl cotttrscl ltlr I)r. (itrlltc ancl I)r. I{inclaui, on thc other lrarrd, poitrtecl or.rt ttl llte plca t'aisccl in tltc plaint in c.s. (os) No.2020 of'2006 filcd by thc llcsponclcnt 'No..5 J. W.P.(C) Nos.3576,3s77,5422, 5423 ol2oO7 & 7o3ss, 7o4oo & 70450 ol2009 & j:}.":r':;:, w q (^- I Mitra & Co. there is a clear adrirission to thc c1J'cct tlrat thc patent had lreerr grantecl on ).?."n Scpternbcr ?.006. 'l'ltis \\fits thcreftlrc tht: nrrclcrstan<ling of J.Mitra & (lo. itsclf.

¶19Lcarncd connscl {ilr thc l)ctitioncrs also attackctl thc borraliclcs o['J. Mitla & Co. allcging that it was an inli'ingcr rvhich had applicd firr arrd obtaincd a plcthora of patcnts which wcrc in {act copics ol'patcnts and produots available wor'lclwidc ancl in India. It is subnritted that tlre two patcnts in cluestiou rolatc to a third ancl fourth generation tlcvicc [or thc detcctiorr of llCV autibodies in the hurnan sernnl aurl plasnra. lloth tlrc patcrrts lvcrc irnitations oI a patcnl" <lbtaincd by a tJS c<llnpany, liY Laboratorios, in 1991. Ilowovcr, sincc JiY Labolatorics clid not havc ar patcnt in Inclia, procccclings could not bc institutccl against.f . Mitra & ('o. lbr iuli'iusorncnt.

¶20lt is submittsd by learned counscl lilr thc pctitioncls that all clairns ol' J. Mitra & Co. filcct in thc'tJnited States l)ateut Oftice lta<l bccrr rcicctctl on tlrc qrounds oIobviousncss and irrsu{ficicucy. [t is pointcrl out by Mr. Anand that Ii.cspondcut No. 5 had originally applied fur thc patcnts in clncstior: u,ith l4 claiurs followccl by rcduction o['claitls to 7 aflcr which thc pateut was published lirr oppositi<ln u,ith the said 7 ciainrs. Whcn thc patcr)t rvas grautccl on 22"'t Scptcrnllcr 2006,it lvas grantccl lirr 4 claiurs. Clairu 1 of thc 4 clainrs is stated to bc diffcrent fi'oln the published (llainr L livcn aftcr acknowlcclging this to be a rristal<c irr its ortlcr datcd 2..i"1 August 2006, thc Patcut Oliicc has not putrlishcrl tlrc clainrs firr w.t,.(c) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, s423 ol 2007 & 7Errr, ';OOO U 70450 of 2OOg & 7020 ol 2070 pogc 72 of 40 F7 (- I '4 opposition. It is stated that after thc oldcr rlatccl 2.1i"' Angust 2006, the patenl. office was urrder obligation uot to grant thc patcnt r.vithin thrcc rnoul.hs of'thc statuLory pcriod of'ap1:eal so tlrat an aggricvctl ltarty c<lLtld filc an apllcal. lt is allcgcd tha.t thc cntirc ploccss of grant of'patcnt rvas donc in a cluick and clandcstinc uranncr so thal no ol"lc would knorv about thc samc. 2-1. lL is subnrittcd by Mr. Anand that Lhs diagnostics kit industry is a vcry srlall ancl closc knit and "cvcty<lnc kttorvs everyonc in this {'icld". Clainring to bc arnong thc leading scicntists in their fiekl, Lhc PctiLioncrs statc that "it is not only thcir duty but also thcil rcsponsibility to cnsnrc that no unsclttpulous trarlcr usurps rights ol othcr partics ol rrralaiiclcly stops othcl partics involvcd in this licld." lt is sr.rbnrittcd that thc intcntion of thc Pctitioncrs is "not to stall thc grant of patcuts [:ut Lo try and cnsure that uo u'r'onglul patents are granted to unscrupulous tradcls in thc intcrcst of thc putrlic". It is submittcd that a paLcnt is a conrplctc monopolistic right arrd should bc granted only afier tlue cunsitlcration. lt is Ibr this rcason that thc lcgislaturc has built in tarious safbguards likc pre-grant opposition, post-grant opposition, rcvocations, couutcr'-clairrr lbr rcvocations and dclbuccs oI rovocation in a suit {br iuli'inscnrcnt. It is statcd that thc'uvords of thc statntc are clcar anrl till suclr tiurc thc graut of lhc patcnt is nlarlc knowrr by thc publicatiun iu thc ol'licial gazctrc, it cannot be said to havc bccn glantcrl in larv. lt is also poin{.ed orrt that the inteqrretation cauvassetl by counsel lrlr resporrdcnl" No.-5 rvas contraty ttl thc currcul practico of'thc (]ontlollcr's ollicc and rvould lcacl to a grcat w.P.(c) Nos. 3s16, 3577,s422, 5423 of 2007 & 7o3ee, 7o40o & 7o4so of 200e & 7:X1!rr:;:, dcal ol' avoiclallle con {irsion. Writ Petition (C) Nos. 10399, 10400 untt 10450 of 2009 12"'t sel oJ' petitinrtsJ

22.'l'hc rclcvant l'acts arc that l,alit Mahajan [{csptltttlcnI No.l in rrll thc abovc rvrit pctitious lilccl throc patcnt applications Ibr grant oIpatctrts bcing Applicatiou Nos. l6ttti/l)c112001, 161l9lDcll2007 orr ti'r' Artl3rtst 2007. ln Application No. 1688 <t[200'1, thc iuvctrtiotr rclatcd to a tlcvicc fbr aualysing the llreseuce o{'T)cnguc IgG antitroclics itr lrttttrall semltl arrd lrfasrla. A1:plication No. l6tt9 ol'2007 relatcd to tlte itn'etttiott rlla kit {br arralysirrg the presence of dettgrte [gM antiboclics in tltc l.rtttrlatr scmnl or plasma. Lalit Mahajan also lilccl trvo othcr applications bcirrlt 74lDcll2005 antl75/Dc112.005 on l2-"'.lanuaty 2005 in rclatiorr to a Pan Malaria Stix ancl a 'I'ctra Malaria Stix rcspcctivcly lbr tcsting ol'tttalatia.

¶23Lilit Mahajan's. Application No. l6tJ8/J)c112007 rvas ptrblished in thc .lournal on 3l'' August 2007. 'Ilrc patent was grattl.cd attd was also scalcrl on l(rtl' Octobcr 2008. A prc-granL t4rpositiorr rvas filed by thc pctitioncr 7,cpl'ryr llionrcclicals ('7.cphyr'') t)u l2'r' I)ccctttbcr 200ti. 'l'hc pro-{}raltt opposition was rcjcctcd on 4'r'March 2009. 'l'his otclcr rvas clrallcngctl by Zcplryr in Writ Pctition ({l) No. 10399 of 2009.

24.l.alitMahajan's Application No. l6ti9/I)e112007 wirs pul:lishcrl ou 7'r' Soptenrbcr 2007. 'l'hc patcut rvas gritntccl ancl sealctl tlrt l(r"' Ocklbcr' 200ti. 'l'he prc-grant oppositiorr rvas filecl by Zephyr on 12."' l)ccctrtbcr 2008. lt was lcjcctcd on 4'l' March 2009. 'l'his olcler rvas clrallcngcd by w.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 ol 2007 & 10399, 7o40o & 70450 of 2009 & 7020 oI 2o7o poge 74 of 40 q .+ d-I /.ephyr in Writ Petition (C) No. 10400 ol 2009.

¶25t,alit Mahajan's Applications No. 74it)cl/2005 antl 75ll)cl/200.5 rvcrc publishccl on 2"'l .lunc 2-006. 'l'hc patcrrt was grarrtccl and scalcd otr l6'l' gctobcr 2003. 'I'hc prc-graut opposition was tilccl by Zc'hyr on 2[l'r' Novcmbcr 2008. It was rcjcctocl by thc (lontrollcf 0n l(r'r' Marclr 2009. 'llris oldcr was cltallcngcd by /,cphyr by filing Wlil J'ctitiou ((') No. 10450 ot-2009. Suhrrrissioirts in tlte 2"'t Set rl'petitirtrts (hy Zepttyr)

¶26'l'ho argul'ncnts adYancccl by Mr. Sanjccv Kttnral' 'l'irvari, lcitnrctl counsol appcar.ing lbr Zophyr against tho oKlcrs o{' thc (".ontlollcr rcjccting its prc-grant a1:plication on thc ground of liruitation wcrc nlorc or lcss sinrilar: to tltc argrttuctrts advatrccd by cottttscl allpcaritrg ltlr l)r. Snehlata Gupte and I)r. Girish llinclani iu rclation to tlte llatcrtts grantcd to.l. Mitra & C-o.

¶27ht rcsistirrg thc pctitious, it rvas subrnittctl by Mr. Manintlcr Singlr, learnecl Senior conusel appcadng fbr Lalit Mahajan that allcr tlre Anrondurcnt to thc Act in 2005, thc timc pcriocl ibr lilinp, a prc-grallt op1:osition may havc bcen rctnovcd but a rcasouablc ilrl,cryrt'etatiott lras to bc givcn to thc anrcrtclcd Scctiolt 25 kccping in vicw thc ctltrtcxt. Iic places enrplrasis on the rvords "uulcss thc coutcxl" <ltltcrwisc rccluircs" occurtirrg irr the opening ltortiorr olSectiun 2- (l) o1'thc At;t atrtl sttbtnits that thc loctts to challcngc a patcnt that has bccn grarrtccl gcts rcstrictctl t<l w.P.(c) Nas. ss76, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70399, 10400 & 70450 of 2009 & 7020 of 20X0 poge 75 of 40 / I a pcrson interesterl. [e submitLccl that considcriug lhat tlro grant o[ a patclll-'is a recogrril.ion of'.the crcativc rvrlrk of the inrrsntr:r. anrl has to pass a fairly rigorous cxaurinatiorr 1:roccdurc through scvcral stages rvlriclr by its vuy natulc is tinrc cousunrinll, u t."ns,,,rnbl" pcriocl as opposccl to an indcfinitc opcn-cndcd pcriod has to bc givcn lbr tl:c liling ' of a prc-grant opposition, which is by any pcrson.

¶28Mr. Matrinder Singh llointcrl out that thc schcmc ol'thc Act anrl thc li.ulcs indicatcrl that thc scvcral acts learlirrgl to tlrc [rant o{'thc patcnl. certificate were [o bc pcrlonncd within spccific tirnc periods. [{cfcrringl to T{nlc 74 (2) ol'thc ltulcs hc subrnittccl that a patcnt ccrtificalc is to bc ordinarily issncd within sot'cn rlays fionr thc clatc o1'.r;rant of patcnt uudcr Scction 43. lJndcl llulc 24, thc pcriorl for u'hich an a;lplication lbr patcnt shall not ordinarily bc opcn to putrlic undor Scction tlA(l) shall bc l8 ruronths fronr the date of filing of aplllication or thc datc o[ priority of application, wliichever is earlicr. ln tcmrs of l{ulc 24-1f (lXi) a rcrlucst Ior cxaurinatiou utrtlcr Scction llll <lf'tlrc Act is rnade lvithin 48 muntlrs fionr thc rlatc o1'prirlrity ol'tlrc application or fionr thc rlatc of'liling of' tlrc application whichever is earlier. Urrcler l{ulc 24-l}(2-) (i), thc pcriotl rvithin'rvhich thc Controllcr shall rcfbr thc application and spcoilication arrd other docurnents to thc Jixamincr rvhcrc suclr fequesl" {itr' c.tantination has bccn maclc shall orclinarily bc witlrirr unc nronth liorrr the clatc of its putrlication or withirr one nrorith h'onr thc <latt: of cxarninat"iou, 'uvlrichcvcr is latcr. tJnder I{ule 24-l} (2Xii), tlrc l.lxanrincr sh<luld ordirrarily subrlit tlrc rcport within onc rlouth but not cxcccding W.P.(C) Nos.3576, 3577,5422, 5423 oI 2OO7 & 10399, 10400 & 7O45O ol 20Og & 7020 ol 2.070 pogc 7(t ol 40 gq iF r-thrce nronths {rorn thc clate of rej-ercuce and thcrcallcr thc (lontroller shoulrl, irr accorclance with Rule 2-4Jl (2Xiii), dispose ol' thc rcport 'uvithin onc rnonth df its lcccipt. Under ltulc 24-ll (3), thc llrst cxarnirration rcport is scnt to thc applicarrt witlrirr six nronths fiorn thc datc of'rcqucst lbr cxanrination or publication whichcvcr is latcr anrl unclcr Itulc 24-B (4),l"hc tiurc for puttiug an applicatiun in ordcr ltrl grant undcl Scction 2l shall bo twclvc rnonths lionr thc datc on rvhich thc filsL stttcurent ol-objecti<ln is issued to the applicarrt to coruply tvith thc rcclr.rirerlcnts. It is subrlittcd that given the spccifiecl l.inrc linrits prcscribccl at tlre stage of'scrutiny of the applications lor .qrarrt o('patcnt ancl givcn thc facl that thc graut o{'a patcnt rclatcs back to thc datc ou ivhich thc application is lilcd, thc patcntcc actually loscs uruch of'thjs pcriod lilr r,vorking thc patcnt. '(iivcn thc Iact that an application lor glant of patcnt can gct publishccl only aftcr a pcriocl of l8 rtronths and tlrat thc Controller caunot take up the applicatiou lirr cxarnination lttr a pcdod of six urouths alicr its publication, it is ucccssary to lcad a reasonable tirnc lirnit for filing a prc-gmnt opposition. l{eference is rnadc to thc clccisions in Sulit Singh Kulrs v. (Jnion oJ'ludiu (1991) 2 SCC 87 and Directorute of linforcement u. Deepuk Muhqfun /lIR 1994 SC 1775. H4'it Petitiort (C) No. 1020 oJ'2010

¶29l'hc pctitioucr'fibotcc Phamraceuticals ("I'ibotcc') lilccl its application ftlr grant of patcnL on I l'l' .hrnc 2004 f or-arr invcrrtiurr titlc<l '(llrnbirratiou ol' Oyklchornc l)a;o l)cpcndcut [)rotcasc [rrhibitors'. 'l'hc W.P.(C) Nos.3576,3517,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 7020 oJ 2070 poge. 77 of 4O e D7 v tr"- ' ,'- t lirst exanrination repolt lvas issued on lrl"' rvas publislrcd on 30"'Novcrnbcr 2007 in Act. Afler considcrirrg the lesponse of the cxanrinatiorr rcporl, tlrc Cclrrtrollcr issuctl ir Matclr 200t1 to thc lollorving cllbct: March 2.007. 'l'hc application tcrnrs o{'Sectiotr llA o[ thc I'ctitioncr in rcply l"o tlrc flrst lottcr to thc l'ctitiorrcr on 2tl'r' hbr z.l5r-t "Yonr abovc Application {br patout has lrccu fbLurtl in orclcr lbr grant. Ilowcvcr, l"hc Patcnt (lcliilicatc will bc issucd only attcr proccssiug oJ' thc Applicatiorr under Section ll(a) /sn' lltll anrl cornplction of thc statutory lirnit and rlisposal of' plc-grant opposition, il'any, undcr Scction 11..5(l) <lf' thc Act."

¶30'l'hc pctitioncr's casc is that on 30'l' May 200t1, thc nraudatory pcriod of six months in tculs oI l{ulc 55(l-A) oI thc llulcs auxl thc thlco conditions in thc afo.rcmcntioncd lcttcr stoocl satisficcl. Accorcling tu the l)ctiLioucr, thc patcnt was rlccurcrl to lrave [leen granterl lhrnr such rlatc. -i l. On 26* Junc 2008, Cipla Lt(l. filcd a prc-ly-ant rcprcsctrtation/ opposition.'l'his rvas notificclto thc Pctitioncr fiorn thc l)cllri Oflico of' thc C'ontrollcr.'l'hc Pctitioncr, by its lcttcr clatccl 2l" Octobcr 200[i, poirrtcd out to thc ConLrollcr that thc 1:tc-glaut oppositiol $,as tilllc-lrurcd. 'fhc Pctitioner also liled an interlocutory petiLion datcd 10'r' Novcml;cr 200ti praying lor issuancc of a patont ccrtillcatc irr its litvour an<l lor re.iccting thc opposiLiuu frlcd lly Cipla Ltd. 'l'hcrcaflcr thi: Pctil-ioncr also filccl an afliclavit o['evidence on 7'r' .lanuarv 2.00!) ol'orrc T)rofessor l)avid J<lhn Ilacl<, W.P.(C) Nos. 3576,3577,5422, 5423 oI 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 70450 ol 2009 & 7020 ol 2070 poge 78 of 40 t-I

32.'fhe Petitioner arrcl CiplaLtd. rvere hcard by thc Assjstatrt Oontloller o('Patcnts orr 9'l' January 2009 ancl writterr subrnissions rvcrc filctl try thcur on 27'l' Marclr 2009. lly an ordcr datcd -i0'l' Malch 2009. thc Assistant Controllcr allorvccl thc prc-grarrt opposil"iorr and rcflsccl to thc Pctitioncr thc grant of thc patcnl on thc grountl oI'lack oI'invcnLivc. stcp. Thc Controllcr's ordcr datcd 30rr' March 2009 bas bccn challcngcd by 'l'ibotcc in this pctition. An'rong tho grourrds raiscd in this pctition is that thc 1;re-graut opposiLiorr filcd aftcr 30'l'May 200[J rvas not rrrnintainablc. Sultnissiorts of Oounsel h Tihotec's pelitiorr

¶33Mr. I{ajiv Nayyar, lcaruccl Scuior counscl appcarirrg {or thc l)ctitioucr 'I'ibolcc subnrittcd that thcrc was a distinction llctwccn thc 'issuancc' of a patcnt ccrtificatc unclcr llulc 7z[ ancl thc 'grant' of'patcnt lbl tho prlrposcs o['Scction 43. IIo also rcfcmcd to thc irnpulncd ordcr passccl by thc Assistant Contloller whcrc it was obscrvcrl that "thcrc wiis llo iurpcdimcnl on 30tl' May 2008 to thc issuance of the patr.:nt ccrtificatc antl that tlrc Patcnt Officc shoukl lravc dorrc so withirr scvcrr days o1'-i0"' May 2008 as thc application r,vers pr.rblishccl on 30'l' Novcnrl:cr 2.007 anrt .six rurontlrs period was over on 30'r' May 200t1". [t was firrthcr observcd in thc ilnpugnctl ordcr that thc grant of patclt by thc ('ontrollcr aud thc subsequcnt issueurcc of lcttcrs of pirtcnt lravc takcn rnore tinre than it conld havc takcrr ordinarily but ttrat did not prcchrdc thc Iiling ol a prc-grant opposition. It is accordiul3ly submittcd that lor all practical pul?oses the e{'fectivc date of'grant of' thc patcrrl-sh<lLrltl bc l}0'l' May 2008 or tlrc vcry rrcxl" clay tlrcrcaficr. W.P.(C) Nos.3576,3517,5422, 5423 ol 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 & ;::"":;:;:, n /"t-f- I

¶34Mr. Mtrjurndar', leamcrl counscl ap;:earing lbr Oillla J.td. suburittcd that aL thc sl.agc of filing of the application and its cxanriuatiorr iu initial phasc by thc Controllcr, thcrc wels llo third parLy. 'l'he (lntrollcr acts as a fact liicling authority. Soctiou 3 of'thc Act scts oul tho glor.urds (br' rclirsal. [f thc patcnt is rcfuscrl, thc ordcr is rclatat:lc to Scction l5 ol thc Acl.. Thc (--ontrollcr coulcl ask for au aurcndrncl'lt to llc rnadc r:vcn at that stagc. 'l'hc intimation that l.hc patont is irr oldcr is not lly itsclf a grant ot' patcnt. 'Ilris is an oxlcr rclatablc to Scction l-5 o{'thc Acl-. Accurulirrg Lo lrinr, thc stagc ol' Scctiou 43 l'or'grant o1' patcrrt is leached only aftcr cornplction of'thc proccsscs cnvisagcd by Scction l5 of the Act. tJuder Scctiorr 4-5, thc datc of'patcnt is alrcacly a lixcd datc sirrcc nndcr Sccti<lrr 45 (l) "r:vcry patcnt shall bc datsclas of thc rlatc orr rvhich thc applicatiorr ftlr patcnt was filccl". lt is this clatc that is cntcrccl in thc ltcgistcr.. llc pointr:d out that undcr Itrrlc 80 to kccp a patcnt in liu'cc, thc rcnc'uval t'ocs spccilicd in thc liirst Schcdr.rle shalI bc payable at thc cxpiration of tlrc sccond ycar li'om thc datc of thc patent and tlre periocl filr payrnent ol' rerrcrval fces rrray bc cxtenderl up [o six nrontlrs. So thc datc ol'patcllt bccorlcs critical f<lr tlrc payrncnt of'rcncrval f'ccs. Wlrclc an applicarrt has nol" paid renerval fees, it nreans that hc is awalc tlrat lrc has nol lrccu grantccl a patcut.

¶35Mr. Majtrmdar pointcd out that lJnclcr ltulc 122, thc (]ontrollor can cor:r'cot clerical euors. J,ikclvisc. unclcr Seotion .l46 thc (lontrollcr ciul call lor infonnatiou regarding the conrrrrclcial working of tlrc patent rvithin two rrrcnths fiorn thc datc of'such poticc. Notrvithstancling this, w.P.(C) Nos.3576,3577,s422, s423 of 2007 & 7oi99,7o40o & 7o45o $ 20os & 7020 ol 2070 poge 20 oI 40 I u'j-r" urxlcr Scctiotl 146(2) evely. patcnt hoklcr has to fumish statortrcuts iu srrch urarrucl and [onn and in n<lt less thatr six tnotttlts as tnay lrc prcscribcd as to thc cxtont to which tltc pittottetl ittvcnLiott has ltcctt rvorkccl on a comlncrcial scalc in Irrclia. Il'no suclt rcports arrc {ilcd, thcrr it is plain that no patcnt has bccn grantctl. 'I'[rc working ol thc patcnt ariscs only udrcrc it is grantcd. Mr. Majumdar pointctl out that untlcr Itulc 130 an application lbr rcvicrv oI thc ('ontrollcr's ordcr ltas Lo llc ruradc within onc month fiour the date of c<lrrrmurrication oI thc dccision to thc applicant. :i6. Tt is submittcd by Mr. Majuurclar tlrat iu tltc instant caso tltcro was no prcsumpLion of glant ol'patont only on thc basis o{'lhc lcttor tlatctl 2lJ'l' March 200tl as it"rvas only an inlbtnral intimatiorr to thc l'ctitioncr rvhiclr rvas in lact uot rccprircd to bc tnadc in lau,. lt is only as a long standirtg practice that the Controller has been issuing such cotumunicatiotts brtt thcrc is no guarantcc that patcnt u'ould be grarttcd ouly on accolll)t of 'snch corrrrrrurricatiotr. Sccorrrlly, 'rvithout thc <;ornplctiorr of'tlrc proccdttrt: cnvisag,ccl unclcr Scction 2.5(l) ancl Scctiorr llA, l"lrcrc catr bc rto grattt ol' a patent. lt is suburittccl that.lbl tht: purposcs o1'thc Act "thc tlitte of' grant of thc patcnt is tho <latc on rvhich thc l{cspottdcnt alrtholitics l)ass thc orclcr ol'grant. It is only aftcr such an ortler is passcd, that a patcnt is trcatcd as grantcd no lrattcr wltcn thc ccrtilicatc of glant is isstrcd ot' rvhcn tlrc grant is recordcd or noLilled." It is accordingly subrnittctl that as on thc clate of thc filing ol'prc-grant dpposil.ion, no eraut of'pal"cnt hatl talccn placc as cnvisagccl by thc Ar:t. w.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 ol 2007 & 70399, 7O40O & 70450 of 2009 & 7020 of 2070 pogt:27 of 40 ry .^+r: r- \ ll7. 'l'ho 'writ pctition is also rosistcd otr tltc ground oJ. laches. lt. is statctl that Lhc Pctitioncr chosc to challcngc lhc oltlcr clatetl 30rl' March 2009 orrly on 22"" January 20 10. l{cliancc is ltlacetl tltt thc.itrrlgtncnt of'tht: Suprcrlrc Court in Stute $'M.P. v. Nsndhl.lninpul (1980 4 SCC 566. ll4rcn cun u putent be suitl to be gruntei?

¶38'fhc colnlnon clucstion that ariscs in all thcsc pctitions is rvhcn can it bc said that a prtctrt lras becn grarrted? Section 2 (l) rlf tho Act opcns rvith thc'"volds "unless lhc contcxt othcrrvisc rccluircs".'l'his has ttl bc lcarl rvith Scctiorr 2 (l) (m) rvhich tlefines a'patctrt'as "a llatcnl ftlr atry irrvcntiou grantccl untlcr tltis Act". 'l'ltc tlatc of'grant of'patcrrt is critical Ibr clctcrnilning thc tirnc 'within which a prc-p,rant o1:position has to bc Iilcd in tctms of Scction 25(1) of thc Act. Alict thc euttcttcltrcnt to tltc Act and in particular to Scction 2.5 (1) rvith cll'cct from t't .lanuary ?.005, a signiiicant changc has bcen broughL in this rcgard. l'rior to its alncndmcllt, undcr Scction 25(l) the prc-gmrtt oppositiur had to bc lilcd rvithirr fout' rnonths firlur tlrc date of advcrtiscllcnt of'tltc acr:eptancc o{' thc conrplctc spccification. 'l'his advcfliscnrcnt in thc ol'fjcial gaz.cttc ol' thc acccptancc of conrplete spccification was ttnclcr Sccliorr 2-i o['thc Act, prior to its arucnclnrcnt. A lirlthcr tnaxiuntnt pcriod ol'orrc tttotttlt coultl bc allorvcd by thc Oontrollcr lor making thc pre-grant opposition. Such prc-grant opposition could bc ntadc only by a 'pcrson intcrcstcil".

39.'l'he significant ohangc blouglrt about by thc arrrettdttreut t<l Sectiolt

2.-5 in 200-5 is tlrat thc prc-grant'rcprcscntatiorr' (or oppositiorr) agaitrst W.P.(C) Nos. i576, 3577,5422.,5423 of 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 70450 oJ 2009 & 7020 of 2070 tP. ,*^f; r-thc grant of patcnt can bc uradc lty "atry 1tcrsou". '['he ptrltlit;atirlu of tltc conrplcte spcci{icatiort no'"v takcs lrlacc urr<lcl Scctiort llA of'tlrc Act. tJnder l{r"rle 24 of thc l)atctrt l{ulcs 20011 thc publicatiott ltaltpctts rtot carlicr tharr l8 months liour tlrc rlatc of'{iling of'thc applioation ot'thc ditc o1'priority of tlrc application, rvhichcvcr is carlicr.

¶40'l'hclc arc spocilic tilnc limits lbr thc stops to bc takcu lor thc iroccl)tance ol' thc conrplctc spccilication filr 1;ublicatiorr tly tlre Contlollcr. 'l'his is followed by a recptesl. matle by thc applicarrt filr cxaurination in tcrnrs o1'Scctiorr llJl o{'the Aot. 'l'his is followerlbv thc cxarnirratiou of'thc applicati<ln nnrlcr Sccl.iorr 12 <lf'tlrc Act u4riclt ltas to takc placc rvithin thc spccificrl tirnc linrit as prcsctibcd in ltulc 24Jl oI thcl{ulcs. Withoutgoingintothcspccificdotailsofthistinrcpcriotl,'Ibr' thc purposcs of thc prcsont pctitions it is sullicicnt to uotc that rvhcrc it is irrterrded that there should be a spccilic tirnc liurit rvithirr rvhich a step has kr lrc takcn eithcr by thc applicant for thc grant ol' patent or lly the Corrtrollcr thcn suclr tirrre lirnit is clearly inclicaterl in thc Aut antl thc Itulcs.

¶41'fhcrc is anothcr provisiou which is rclcvaut in this contoxt. tJndor I{ule 55(I-A), no pateut shall bc grautccl bclolc thc cxpiry of a pcritttl ttl' six months lronr thc clatc of pr"rl:licati<ln of thc applicirtiotr undcr Scctiotr I lA. As a rcsult, at least lor a periocl of 2 yeals alicr liling ol thc application for grant of patent, no pal"eut cau be grantctl. lt is during this pcriocl that thc stcps {'rlr bxatnitration olthc patcnt iu tcrnrs of'Scction l2 W.P.(C) Nos.3576,3577,5422,5423 ol 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 70450 ol 2009 & 7020 of 2010 pogP 23 oJ 40 \r\'yL rl-an(l thcrcalicr tlre consideration by the (lontroller of thc rc;lort ol' tltc lixnrnincr Lurder Section l4 lolluu,ed lry arncn<hnctrts, il'arty, arc itll lunclcrtakon. lL is rhrring tlris Lirrrc also that the prc-grant opllosition is cxpcctcd to bc {ilcd.

42.'l'bc [act of thc acccptancc of thc cornplctc spccilicatiott, as indicatcd by thc , applicant lirr glant of a patcnt, having [:ccn acccplcd [irr' prrtrlication is eviclent fi'our the aclvertisenrcnt ol'snclr spccilication in the Patcnts .Tourrral in terrns o{'Scction llA of the Act. 'l'lrcrefitrc, arry pcrsou r.vho is scckirrg to object to the grant ol-the patcnt is expcctccl l"o kccp thc track of'publicatiou of'such cottrplotc spcci [icatiorr. 'l'his (]onrt has lrccn inlbmrcd that publication also takcs placc on thc wcbsitc, in addition to bcing publishcd in thc .lorulal.

43.'l'hcre is a frlrthcr timc restriction. lJndcr l{ulc 24, thc pcri<ld lilr rvhich an aplrlication lirr pateut "shall not ordinalily bc opcn to public unclcr sub-scction (l) of Sectiorr ll-A shall tre l8 rrontlrs fi'<ltn Llrc tlatc of filirrg of tlrc application or tlrc clatc o{'thc priority of'tlrc application, rvhiclrcvcr is carlicr." ln cf{'cct, thcrcforc, il" will rrot be possible f<lr a porson sccking to olrjcct to thc g,raut o1'a patcnt to ural<c'rcprcscntatitln' carlicr than a pcriod oI lti uronths after the date.of tho liling of suclr application. In any cvcnt sincc in l"crnrs oil{rrlc 55(l-n) no patcnt can llc grantcd l:clorc tlre cxpiry of a poriod of six t:ronths lirlrn tlrc datc tll pLrblicatiorr and the Contrulllcr is cxpcctcd Lo publish ,the application rvithin onc nronth fiorn thc datc of'cxpiry of'thc said pcriod, tlrorc is at W.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 ol 2007 & 70399, 704OO & 7O45O of 2009 & 7020 of 2070 pogc 24 of 4O v a\; !- lcast a pcriocl of six urouths tltcrcafter Iilr thc opposcr to lilc thc rcprcsetrtatiurr.

¶44(iivcn tlrc abovc scltottto, thc attrcncltuont in 2.00.5 ttl Scction 2.5 of'thc nct was apparcntly uradc u,ith a vicu'to cxtcnding thc tiutc pcriod rvithin rvhich an opposition to tltc grant of patcnt had to bc tnatlc. tJttdcr tltt: prc-anrcndccl Scction 25,thc pclsolls intcrcstcd in opposing thc srant o{' paLcnt hacl to ncccssarily llle such opposiLiorr wiLhilr ltlur tttolitlts, a perio<l extenclable only by ottc trtotrtlt, rvltcrcas nutlcr the atlrcltde<l ttr " Section 25 Llttrt period is clcarly extendcd at least up to six montlts. 4-5. (livcn thc practical aspoct oItltc tlattor, ntl patcttt is ustrally gt'ittltctl irnnrccliatcly on thc cxpiry of'six ntontlts Itrlnt thc clatc o1'putrlication of thc application. lt is usually a much longcr pcriocl. 'l'hc altrtcudtrtcrtt h Scctirxr 25 clcarly, tltcrefore, eularges thc tinre fol liling of a prc-gratrt r4rposition.

¶46'l'hc tlrrust of thc Act is that thc trrcro grarrt of'patont clocs not cnsurc its validity. 'l'his is plain li<lm Seotion l3(4) o{'thc Act. llvcrr tho grant of a patcnt docs not cnsul'c that. thcrc lvill lrc no lhrthcr c.hallcngc. lJndct' Scction 25 (2) of thc Act, againsl" thc grarrt ol'a patunt irrrcl the t'c.iectiott of a prc-grant opposition, a post-grant opposition can bc Jitcd by any persou inLeresl.ed belilre the Intellcctual Propcrty Appcllatc ll<lard (lPnll). Au applioation I'or rcvocatiou can lrc filcd beftlle thc ll'Al] lly auy pcrson irrtcrcstcd undcr Scction 64 o['tlrc Act. lf'thc patcrrt holclcr W.P.(C) Nos.3576,3577,5422,5423 of 2OO7 & 7}3gg, 7O4OO & IOOSO o7 ZOOI A 7020 of 2O7O pogc 25 of 40 w, boJ.. l" \ files a suit for'.infringcmcnt counter claiur challcntr;e thc u,ith Sccti<ln 64 ol'the Act). thc J)clbndirnt in such a suit can lly rvay ol'a validil"y of grant of patcrrt (Scctiorr 107 rea<l uFl "* 41 . 'l'hc schcurc o1' thc l)atcnts Aot, tlrclcJorc, is snclt tltal" thcrc arc scvcral hurcllcs to cross bcJbrc thc grant o[ a patcnt can llc sairl to bc Iinal, 'I'hcrc alc two othcr provisions that rccluiro to bo noticctl. IJndcr' Scction -53, ternr of cvcry patcnt "shall lrc 20 ycars firtrtr l"he tlate of'tiling oI thc applicatiorr for thc patent". iJnder Sectirln 45 "cvcry patcrrt shall be datetl as of Lhe clal.e on whicLlthe application filr patcrrt rvas filctl". Sirrcc tlris clatc canrtot possibly l:c changccl, a patcut holdcr rnay crrtl ttp not lrcing ablc to rvolk thc patcnt rh.rring thc tinrc wlrcn it ronrains challcngcd, or its grant is staycd or wlrclt thc pal,cnt lrolclcr is not confidcnt to cxploit it cornmcrcially till all thc challcngcs to its validily are ovel'con'le. Since thele is already a loss of tinrc lrlr thc 1;atcut holdcr' in tho abovc processes, thc tiurcperi<ld cnvisagcd by Scctiorr 2-5(l) rll'thc Act {br filing of a prc-granL oppositiorr caturot possibly trc libcrally coustmccl, uotwithstanclirrg that thcrc is no spcoi[ic tinro pcriod nrerrtior-recl therein. 'l'he ortter linrit is'the datc otr r.vlrich the patcrrt is glarrtctl.

¶48A careful look at Scction 43 oi'thc Act shows tltat in thc lirst placc att application lor patcut has to lre tiluncl "t<l [)e in order lilr grant". I'his includes tlre period during u,hich courplctc spccificatiorr is acccptcd lirr publicatiou in tcrrns o['Scctiorr llA {illlowctl by thc cxarnirrittiorr ol'thc W.P.(C) Nos.3576,3577,5422,5423 ol 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 1020 ol 2070 page 26 ol 40 patent which takes 1:lace rvithin thc timc-Ii'aruo sct out iu llule Ztl-B <tl' thc l{ulcs. A rclusal al. that stage will be governed l;y Section l-5 of'thc Act. I('thc patcnt is nol r'cftrsed at that stage and no pre-granL ollpositi<lrr has bccrr filccl, thc patcrlt proccctls frlr rcgistratiorr.

¶49Whcrc any prc-!,,rant opposition is {ilcd irr tlrc Jonu of a lcprcscntation undcl Scction 25(1) oI'thc Act, thon it has to lrc cxanrincrl lbllovving thc procedule uutlincd in l{ulc 55 (l). 'I'hc rcprcscntatiorr should irrcludc a stal"crncrlt of oviderrcc an<l a rcquest lur hcaring. tJnrlcr Itulc -55 (2-), thc Controller is to crr:nsicler such rcprcscrrtation "only whcrr a rcclucst fbr cxatrrination of'arr application has bccn filccl". A noticc is givcn to thc applicant "Ibr 1lrant of patcnt" rvhcrc tho (lontrollcr {ilrnrs an opinion, upon considcring thc prc-grant opposition, that tlrc patcnt shortld bc rcluscd or anrcndccl. This happcns uncicr l{rrlo .5.5 (3). 't'hc applicant lbr grant of patcnt thcn rcspontls to the notice lly filin.g his staLcrncnt o1' cvidcnco undcr l{ulc 5-5(4) within three months li'onr the date ol' thc noLicc. [Jndcr ltulc 5-5 (5), thc (]ontroller nrily, on consirlcration of'thc statornout and cviclcncc filcd by thc applicant, cithcr rcftsc to grant a patellt ur recprire thc cornplctc spccification to be aurerrtled bcforc the patcnL is grantccl.

¶50'l'hcrr n c havc l{ulc 55 (6) rvhich is rclicrl upon cxtcnsivcly by thc lcarnecl counscl lilr thc partics and 'uvhich leads as under: "55(6) After consiclcrirrg thc rcprcscrrtatiort anrl snbrnission nrarlc cluring thc hcaring i{'so rcclr.rcsl"ccl, thc Controllcr shall proceecl {irrther sirnultancously w.P.(C) Nos. 3s16, 3577,5422, 5423 oJ 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 704s0 of 2009 & 7020 of 2070 pdge 27 oI 40 ,,,, cither rejcctiug thc rcpresentation anrl glanting thc patcnt or acceptirrg the representation anrl refirsing thc glant of paterrt on that application, olclirrarily lu,ithin onc nronth fiom thc cornpletion ol'above procccdirrgs."

¶51lt is plain, tlrorclorc, that oncr: thc pl'c-granl opposition js dccirlcd, thc Controllcr simnltanconsly procccrls to cithor lcjcct such .rc1:rcscrrtatiou aud grant thc patent or acccpt thc reprcscntation aurl rclilse thc ltatent. 'l'hc lauguagc of'l{ulc -5-5 (6) lcavcs uo n'ulurler' <l{'doubl thal. thcsc trvo acti<lrrs i.c. thc considcratiorr of the represerrtation aud the llnal clccisiorr on thc application f <lr grarrt of'patcnt takc placc sinrultattcously.

¶52lt is possiblc that thcrc arc lnorc thetn onc rcprcscutatiorts by rvay of' pr-c-grant opposition. Idcally, thc (..ontr-ollcr will bunclr thcnr togcthcr, hcar thcrl secprcntially and cxprcss a linal opiniou on cach ol'tltctrt as leu as practicat:lc, on thc samc datc. lt is like a cortrt lrearing a lratch of petitions seeking sirnilar relicf. lt is possible that evcu aftcr tlrc lrcaling on one burrch of pre-grant opposil"iorrs ltas cotrclttclcd and orclcr has bceu rcservecl'thercon, anothcr ple-graul. opposition or a sct ol'r4rpositiorrs is {rlcd prior to thc prononnccrncnt by thc (lontrollcl ot'thc clocision on thc lirst sot of prc-grant oppositions. 'Ihcn thc schcutc of thc nct rcquircs thc (lontroller to deal with such subscclucntly lilcr1 llrc-grarrL ollllositiuns as rvell. llowevcr', oucc a linal dccision is prouonuced on Lhe pre-11rarrt oppositions, iiic (lontrollcr shoulcl, consistcut rvith thc rcquircrncnt of Itulc -5-5 (6) siurultarroor.rsly pr'orlouncc thc clccisiou ott thc applicati<tn firr' w.P.(C) Nos.3s76,3s77,s422,5423 ol 2007 & 7039e, 70400 & 70450 ol 200s & 7::":::;:, vfu1 & ) .tql"'t*"' grant of pateut. 'Ihe (lontroller should clcarly stal.c, sitrultatrcortsly, tltat thc applicatiou is found in order aucl thal. the pateut is beiug grantcri. -53. ltcvcrling to Scctiorr 43 (l), tlrc lauguago usccl is that "a patcut slrall bc grantcd as cxpcditiously as possiblc." 'l'hcrclbrc thc llatcnt lras to llc grantcd. oncc it is founcl that cithcr thc application has uot bccrr rcfirscd iu tcrnrs of Scction 25(l) rcad rvith ltulo 55 (6) or it has uot lrccn lbund in contravention of arry provision oI the Act. ln otlrcr rvorrls, at this stagc thc Controller is nol. expected to delay the llronouucerneut of tlrc flnal dccision. 'l'hc thrust of Sectiorr 43 (l) and l{ule .5.5 (6) is tlrat of' cxpcclitious dccision rnal<ing by thc Controllcr. Scctiou 43 (l) indioatcs that thc "patcnt shall bc grerntcd.....with ths scal.oIthc patcnt <llficc antl thc rlatc on u'lrich thc patcnt is grantcd shall [:c cntcrc<l in thc l{cgistcr". Whcrr rcacl continurnrsly, thc languagc of Scction 43 (l) tlocs ap1:car to jndicatc that it is thc dccision takcn by lhc (]ontroller on [ile rvhich is thc dctemrining cvcnt lor asccrtaiuing 'thc date of grarrt of patent.' 'fhc sealing of the patcnt and thc entcring of lhe patel]t in thc llcgistcr obviously fbllows thc act o{'thc Corrtrnllcr passiug arr rlrclcr to thc c{'[cct thatthepatenthasbeengrantecl. Iuotlrcrrvorcls,thcscalingof'thcpatcrrt ancl thc cntcring of thc patont in thc l{cgistcr alc,'1;ivcn thc larrguagc of' Scction 43 (l) of thc Act, intendccl to bc rninisterial acts evidcncing thc grant ol'patcnt, 'uvhich is at a stagc antcrior to thosc rrfnistcrial acts. -54. Section 43 (2) tall<s of the publishiug by thc (loutrollcr of'"the fact that thc patcnt has trccn grantctl".'l'ho languagc of'scctiorr /t-i (2) is.plain. W.P.(C) Nos.3576,3577,5422,5423 ol 2007 & 10399,70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 1020 ol 2010 poge 2.9 ol 40 UQ * J. 'l'[rc act of publication clcarly lbllorvs thc grarrt ol'patctrt. Pcr lirrce lltc gratrt of-patcnt is arrtcriot'to tlre ltublication anrl has to ttcct:ssarily bc aL a point callicr to thc publication. lt is, thereftxe, llot possiblc ttl ag,rcc rvith thc subnrissions madc on bchalf of tho prc-gralrt opposcrs in thc prcscnt l:atch ol'cascs that tho patcnt cannot bc saicl [o ltavc bccn grantccl till this iact is publishccl in thc oilicial gazcttc. (livcn tlrat thc intcrprctation oI thc provision has to bc coutcxtttal, this ('otrrt holds tlral. thc datc of grant of lttttcnt is thc datc on wlrich the Oontrollcr passcs all ortler to lhat e{I'cct otr lhc filc. 'l'his Cortrl. rrolv pt'occctls to deal rvith tlre appreherrdccl practical problcrns that thc officc of'tlrc (,'ontrtlller tlay fitct: on accouut of'thc irrtcrprctatiorr placccl by this (-'oult on Scction 43 tlf'tltc Act. P r evi o tt s u tt tto u n c e n t e n t ttJ' t lt e d nt e of p r o n o tr n ce nt e n t rtJ' o nl e rs

¶55It was suburittcd that an order does lrot bcconre elfoctivc till such Lime it is commrnicatccl or madc kuo$'lt, llccattse if therr givcs valrralllc rights to botlr tlre holcler of'tlre patcnL as rvcll as any pcrsotl itrtcrcstcd itr opposillg thc grant o{'patcnt. Whilc it is con'cct tlrat thc knor.vlcclgc o{'an orcler granting a patent is impclrtant fionr thc poirrt o['viclv of'botlr the applicant for grant of patcnt ancl thc opposor, it is urrlikcly tlrat tltc applicant is not prcsent, either iu person ot thrortgh a I'oprcscntativc, ou thc datc on which an ordcr is passcd by thc (ltlntrollcr or thc Assistattl Controller glanting the patcnt. In ordcr to obviatc any dilliculty on this score, this (lourt woultl likc to itttpress ultott thc Colrtrollcr atttl l.ltc A$sistant (lontrollcrs to list cascs for prorrounccrncnt tt['ortlcls and tlakc W.P.(C) Nos.3576,3577,5422,5423 oJ 2007 & 703gg, 70400 & 70450 oJ 2009 & 7020 ol Z07O page 30 ol 40 q ft J that l'irct kuou,n by publishing a 'cnrlsc list' ol'such cascs untler [[re hcaclirrg "1ur prorrounccnrcnt of'orclcrs" Llre ptcviorrs cvcning buth on tlrc rvebsite as rvell thc uotice lloard o{'thc Officc of'l"hc (lontnrllcr,.iust as it Irappcrrs in thc (lourts. l'hcrofbrc both thc applicant lurgrarrt o{'patcnt as rvcll as thc prc-grant opposcr wouJd lrc alvat'c of thc datc ou rvhich tlrc or(lcfs al'c to lrc pronounccd. Sincc it rvill bc at lcast thc prcvious cvoning on which thc list is availablo on thc rvcbsitc and also placctl ol thc noLicc boarcl of Lhc O{llcc of'Lhc C'ontrcllcr. thcre rvill be suliicient rroticc to sr.rch parties. Deuling witlt llevietv I'ctilious

¶56II'an approach similal to that tbllorvcrl by courts in hcaliug cascs arrtl passing ordcrs thcrcon is acloptccl, much ol'thc problcnrs lircccl l:y thc (loutrollcr can [:c rcsolvcd. Iior instancc, or]cc a fiual ordcr is pronounccd on a pctition by the CourL, thcn no lirrther aplllications whcthcr ftlr jntervcnti<ln, impleadmeut, opposition or ally othcr rcliel'is cnl.eltained by such court.'l'he only cxccptiorr is thc filing o1'a rcvicu, applicatiorr by a par-t1' to thc cirsc. Lil<clvisc, orloc a firral orrlcr grarrting patcnt is passcrl by thc Controller on tlrc Iilc, thcro is rro cprcstiorr ol'thcreaflel' cntcflaining a plc-grirnt opposition as it is balrcd undcr Sccl.ion 25 (l) rvith no discrction givcn to thc (lontrollcr. lf a rcvicw petitiun is tilcrl unrlcl Scction 77 (l) (I) rcad with J.{ulc 130, it will bc by thosc rvlur alc parties to tlre older of thc Controller or thc Assistant (-'ontr<lllor the revicw of'which is sought. If suclr rcvie'uv pctition is cnl,crtaincrl, and thc orclcr is rccallcd thcn as it happcrrs with judicial rllclcrs by conrts, tlrc w.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 ol 2007 & 70399, 10400 & 10450 ol 2009 & 1020 ol 2070 pago 37 oJ 40 uqz ,* J clock is ltut bacl< to the stagc wltere the ttriginal oLtlcr tvas passccl and all lcgal cottscquclrccs wotll(l llorv. 'l'his by no tncatts alters thc larct thaL tlre datc ul'the grant. of'patcnt is thc datc on which thc (lontrrlllcr or n ssistitlrt (lontrollcr passcs an ordcr on filc granting tltc patcnt. lltordingof theJinul order grunting pututt -57. 'l'hcrc is onc othcr aspcct which rccluircs to [c advcrtccl to, which is thc wording ol'tltc orrlcr granting patcnt.'I'lrc (lolrtloller shoulcl llass the '{iual orclcr' saying tltat "thc patcnt is hcre$y glatrtecl" grrly aftcr all anrendtlerrts have beeu carriccl out to tltc satislactiorr of'thc ("'ontroller by tlrc applicarrt.'l-hc Oontrollcr rvill, thcrcltllc, trot tlisposc of'tlrc application or pass a linal ordcr till sLtch timc thc Allplicant has not carricrl out tlrc arncudtttonts to thc satislaction of thc (lontrollcr. lt rvill havc to bc a timc-bottnd orclcr fol that ptnposc. A liriltrlc to carry otrt llrc amcndrrcnt to thc specilication as directed by the (lontlollcr tlr Assistant Controllcr within thc timc grantcd mighL rcsult in rejection <lf tltc ltatcttL rvhich contingeucy is covererl uttder S. I 5 of thc Act. Plucirtg tlrc digitolly ,^ignad orders on the rtat

¶58ln ordcr to mittitniso alty Llltllccossary tinrc-getp bctwccn thc sillning lly the (lontroller or Assistaut Contrttllcr ttf thc linal oldcr grarlLing patcut and thc 'putrlishing' of suclt ordcr, it is dircct<;d tlrat cvoly linal rurclcr graurting thc pzttcnt passcd by thc (lontroller rlr tlts AssistauL Oontroller, as thc case nray be, shoukl bc digitally sigrrccl by the Controllcr or thc Assistaut Co'ltrollcr autl placccl otr tltc r.vcbsitc <lf'thc til.P.(C) Nos.3576,3577,5422, 5423 ol 2007 & 70399,10400 & 70450 ol 2009 & 7020 of 2070 page 32 oJ 40 * J (lontroller on the very sarRe clay without any ul'lnoccssary clclay. 'l'hc procedurc in tlris rcgald bc strcarrlincd {clr bcing follorved unilirrrrrly by all thc olficcrs and nccessary instructions/practicc clirccti<lrrs should be issncd bv tlrc Ooutrollcr. lligltts rf' post-grant opposers protecled

¶59'l'hc rights o1' such o[ thosc post-grant opposols rvho arc pct'sofls 'iutcrested' are suf{icictrLly protcctcd utrdcr Scction 2-5(2). Sincc thc pcliorl of linritation l-ol filing a post-grant oppositi<xr is onc tnontlt "lutttr the date of pLrblication ol'grant of a patcut", thc lcs.islature lras, tltete[ore, alroacly takcrr calc <ll thc intcrcsts of'thc post-grant opposcrs ancl n'radc tlrc pcriod o{'lirlitation run only lionr thc clatc o{'pul:lication of tlrc grant o( patcnt which is cxpcotccl to talcc placo in tct nts ol' Scction 4ll (2) o1'thc Acl..

¶60It rmrst be undcrstood that prior to thc aurcndnrcut in Scctiorr 2-5 irr the ycar 200-5, evcn a prc-gralll. opp<lsition coulcl l:c lilcd <lttly by any pcrsoll 'intcrcstcd'. [t is only aflcr thc atlcucltnctrt in 2005 that arry persoll can now file the pre-grant oppositiorr. 'l'he Act, thcrc{orc. tlakcs a distinction bctrvccu an' opposol at thc stagc o{'prc-gt'atrt oppositiotr, ,uvho could lrc 'any' pcrsou, ancl thc (4)poscl'at thc post-gt'atrt stagc, rvho could only bc a 'pclsorr intcrcstcd'. 'l'hc lcgislativc intcnt is that thc riglrt to llle a 1;ost-grant oppositiou under Section?.5 (2-) is rcstricted to aity pcrsorl intercsted. 'l'he fircL that tlre resl"riction o{'tht: l"itrc to {ilc a 1:re- .qraut which rcsults Irorrr thc intcrprctatiott givcn by this aourt l)tay w.P.(C) Nos.3576,3577,5422., 5423 ol 2007 a 70399, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 7o2o of 2o7o poge 3i ol 40 q\' h -) irnpact thc twcl classcs of pre-grant opposcrs diIfercntly is cottsistcnt rvith thc abovc distiuctiorr.

¶61Whilc rcstrictiug thc titnc pcliotl filr tiling a prc-gt'irrrt oppositiott to thc tinrc u,hcn snch patcnt is grantotl nlay iuconvcnicucc "auy llotson" rvho wishcs to lilc a prc-grant opposition, it is ccrtainly not 13oing to inconvcnicncc a "p{.:l'son intclcstccl". lit'cn iJ' sr.rch 'intcrcstctl' pcrson rurisscs Lhe bus at tlrc plc-grant stage, thc right of suclt persolt to opposc at tlre post-glant stage is prcscrvecl uttdcr Scctitn ?.5 (2) of' thc Act. 'l'hereforc, the iuteqrretat"i<ln placcd by this (lourL ccrtaitrly carrrrot projudicc a pcl'son iutcrcstccl iu opposirrg tlrc gtant of'patcnt. As rcgarcls any pcrson, othcr than a pcl'son intcrcstctl, thc lcgislativc intcnt appcars to lcstrict thc scopc of such pcrson conlincd to tlic stagc oI'prc-grant. It u,ould bc ncccssary, thcrclbro, Ior such pcrson (',vlt<l ttray not lrc an 'intcrcstcd'pcrson) to bc vigilant and to u,atch ouL lirr thc datc of advcrtisemen[ of the complctc spccification and rttrdcrstantl that the linrittl"iorr lor filing a pre-graut oppositi<ln bcgins [t) run liour that tlate onrvartls. Need to discou'age filing of serial opltositiorts

¶62Acccpting the submissions of prc-grant opposers in thc plescnt batclt o[ caics that till such timc lltc gtturt of patcnt is not ctttcrcd irr tlrc Itcgistcr, ancl uotrvithstarrding tltal-au <lrder has alrcady bccu passcd ott filc by thc Contrcller grantiug a patent, tltey can cotrtitntc to filc thc prc-grant rcplcscntations in tcntrs ol' Sccl"iorr 25 (l) tttigltt rcsLtlt irt thc W.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,s422, 5423 of 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 70450 oJ 2009 & 7020 ol 2010 poge 34 of 40 {A/ L J phenourenon of 'serial oppositiors', as has happoncd iu tltc casc o['tlte applicatious filcd opposirrg the patetrts applictl lirr by J. Mitra & ('ourpany. Within a clay alicr tlrc (lurtroller rc.jcctcd tlrc prc-grarrt qrposition filcrl by SDl,, l)r. Guptc filcd a prc-grant oppositiorr. Sootr thcrcalicr J)r. l{inclani filed his pr-c-grant opposition. In oLhcr rvortls, if this ('ourl" worc to hokl that tlic datc of thc grant of patcnt is ouly thc datc ou rvhich thc lhcl"uur oI such grant is cntcrctl in thc ltcgistcr, tltcu lltcrc rv<luld bc no errd to filing of pre-grant np1;ositi<lns as lorrg as on accornrt o[ sonrc dclay on thc administrative side tlte lacttutr of'granl" o('patertl" is not crrtcrccl iu thc llcgistcr. Givcrr the scherrre oltlre Act, anrl tlrc nrunbr:r <l{'hurdlcs au applicant fbr graut of'a patont has to ovcrcornc, cvcrr if'thc application is lbuncl to bc 'in orclcr lbr grant', it is not possil:lc to acccpt thc intcrprotation put ftlrth by thc prc-grant opposcl's. (13. 'l'hen rve havc ouc urorc situation as in l"he casc <lf 'fibotcc. I'hc urcrc conumrnication by thc (lontrollcr to thc applicant fbr grant of patuut that thc applicat i<lrr has bccn lilrrrrl in oltlcr strlr.jcct,rf ",r,,r*" to thc rlccisiotr on prc-graut <4lposition, i{'auy {ilcd, cannot bc coustrucd as tlrc of'ficial clecisiorr of'the (lorrtroller grirntirrg thc patcut. '['hctc has to bc au ortlcr on {llc passcd by tho Controllcr holding that thc patcnt has bccrr f ouncl in order arrd that patent is granted. tJntil ancl unlcss such an order is passed on Iilc, it cannot bo said tlrat thc patcnt has lrccn grantccl.

¶64hr adoptine thc above interpretatiorr of'Scction 4-i and othcr rclatcd provisiorrs of' tlrc Act this Clourt has kcpt in vicrv thc lirllou'ing w.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 7020 ol 2070 pDge 35 of 40 I It ) ollscrvations of thc Suprenre court iu Entertttirtrttant Ncl'rwtrk (Indiu) Ltd. v. Supar Cusst:tte. Intluslries Ltd. (2008) I3 SCC 30, irt paras liiT aucl 139, r.vhich though rrraclc in tlrc corrtcxt o['thc Oopyright Acl" tnay rvcll tpply to tho prcscnL cascs as wcll: "137. Iurthcl'nlol'c, thc cottrt rvhilc intcqrrctiul3 ir statuLc rvill put itsclf in thc anuchail of tho rcasonatrlc lcgislaturc, all staLutcs nrust bc plcsur:rcrl to [:c rcasonablc. It is now tl'itc law that litcral interprctalion should bc avoidcd wltcrt it lcads to atrsurdity. . . . . .

¶139In this casc, holvcver, thc nrcaning of' tlrc staLutc is nsithcr clear rror sensible. lt is a statrrtc wlrcrc a purposiVc consl.rnotiorr is rvarrantcd. ll" is a casc whclc sub-scction (2) should bc kcpt conlincd to clauso (a) tbr that purposc. 'l'hc statntc has to bc rcad dorvn. lt is not a casc of impropcr intcrpolation so as to tako away a priurary puposc oI thc lcgislativc intcnt. lt is cxpedicnt to givc effcct to thc intcnt of thc statrrtc. Ihis itself says that crcilscs cau bc iloncd out. Wlrile undertaking the said cxercisc, lhc Court's cndcavour would be to give a rrrcarring l-o the plovisiorrs ancl uol. rcrrcler it otiose.... " 6-5. 'l'his court. for tlrc afbrcmcntionccl rcasons, holcls that ftrr thc purposcs of Sr:ction 43 (t) of thc Act, thc paicnr is 'grantccl' ou tlto (latc on rvhich thc Controllcr Dasscs a final order to that ellecl" on thc lilc. Oonclusiorts: Jrirst sel of ltelitiorts

66.'l'hc facts in the first set of'petitions'havc alrcady bccn cliscussed. tlrc first sct of petitions, the orcler clated 23''' Augtrst 2006 llasscd by w.l'.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 10399, 70400 & 7O45O ol 20Og & 7020 ol 2010 pogc 36 of 40 qt fr ) l,- Itl thc (lontrollcr, rvhile clisnrissing thc prc-grant opposition that "I ltcrelly otclcr Lo grant patent (I'atent No. 19463u) on batch Apltlication No. 59311)cll2-000" nrr"rsl. bc taknn to be the <late ou rvhiclr the l)ittont wits grantcrl. Although, as 1;ointccl out by lcan'rccl coutrscl lbr thc l)ctitiorrcrs, thc saicl ordcr rcquircs thc applicant (J.Mitra & (lo.) to anrcnd thc s1-rcciiication t<l include a cross loforcrlco, it clocs not matcrially al't'cct thc I'actum of thc grant of patcnt. 'I'hc iact that it rvas outcrcd in thc l{cgistcr' on 22"'t Scptcnrbcr 2006 would not nrakc any tliflcrcuce to tlris position. l;urther the statenrcrrt by J.Mitra & Co. in thc plaint in (1.S. (OS)No.2-02-0 ol'2006 tlrat thc ;:atent rvas grantc<l (ttt 2?-"'t Scptenrbcr-2.006 rvoultl al.so not rnakc a cli {'fcrcncc to thc position in law.'l'hc datc of'thc graut of'tltc patcnt in qucstion to .l.Mitra & Co. shoukl lrc takcn as 23''" August 2-006.

¶67Oonsr:clrcntly, any lrrc-grflnt opposition lllcd alicr 2lird Arrgrrst. 2006 rvas clearly lrared unrler SecLion 25 (l) o{ lhc Act. 'l'hcrelirre thc iurpul3ncd orders of thc Controller rejecting thc prc-granl" opposiLi<lns tiled by the petitiorrels are valid ancl clo not call for interfercttce.

¶68Nottvithstanding thc atrovc conclnsion, tlris Oourt also holds that tlrc liling of prc-grant opposition by l)r'. Ouptc anrl I)r'. l{inrlani subscclucnL t<t 23"t August 2006 was, erpart fron'r bcing not rnaintainablc in la\ ,, also an abusc of thc proccss of lar.r'. 'I'his Court is uot corrvittccd of thc llonafidcs o1'either ol'the Petitionel's. 'l'here has not lrccn anv ellcctive dcrrial o('tlrc fact l"hat botlr Petitiorrers wclc associatcd rvitlr Sl)l , iu sunrc capacity or thc othcr'. lt is irnpossiblc to conrprchcrrd that oithcr o{'thcsc w.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 7\3gg, 10400 & 70450 ol 2009 & 1020 of 2010 { ,l ) Potitioncrs was ullawarc of thc lirct that thc {iling ttf' thc pfe-llrant r4:position by Sl)1. or ol' thc thct that it ltas lrccrr takerr q: lor cotrsirlcrati<lrr by tlre Controller ol'Patcnts or tl['thc fact that thc ordcr <lrr such prc-grarrt opposition woro pcnding.

¶69J,lvcn according to thcsc lctitioncrs, thc comuttnity o1' thosc intcrcstcd in thc clcvclopnlont o{'tho tcst kits is a surall olrc and cvcry stclr takcrr by each comltctitorwoulcl bc l<nowtr Lo tho otlrcr.'l'his itself belies thc Iact that either T)r. Gupte ot' Dr. I{indani was tlllawal'c of'tltc llrc-grant opp<lsitions alrearly filcrl by SDL in rclation to tlte patottL applicatious of J. Mitla & Courpauy. (iivcn tlic lorrg histoly of'litigation

¶4ltctwccn thc partics, it crcatcs liulhcr doubts on thc lronafttlcs ol'thcsc Lrvo I'ctitioncrs.

¶70|or all oI the above Leasous, this Court lincls al:solutcly tto rnct-il-in tlre fbrrr Writ I'ctition (C) Nos.3.516,3517, 5422 anrJ 54)3 <tl'2.007 in thc first sct i.urcl thcy atc clisrnissccl n'ith costs of'lts.20,000/- each u,lticlr will bc paid by cach of'thc Pctitioncrs to .1. Mitra & Oo. withirr a pcritltl ol' f our rvccks. Conclusiorrs: Second set of petitiotts

¶71In the second set oI petitions by Zephyr, tltc patcttt itt lhvottr o[ Lalit Maha.jan rvas grantcd and scaled ou l6'l'Octoltct'200ti u,hurcets.Lhc prc-grant opposiLiou was filccl irr onc case on 28'l'Novcrrrbcr 200ti anrl in trvo orher cascs on l2tl' Decerntrcr 200ti. 'l'hcrc can bc no lnanrrer of'doutrt tlrat the filing of such pre-graut oppositiorr was subscclucrtt to thc grar:t of' w.P.[C) Nos. 3576, 3s77,s422, 5429 oI 2oo7 & 7o3sg, 7o4oo & 70450 of' 2oog & 7o2o of 2o7o poge 38 oI 40 _) patent arxl was llared unclcr Section 25(1) of' tlrc Act. 'l-ltcro ts absolutely, tlrerefole, no crror in the ordcrs passccl by thc ('otttrollot' rcjcoting the 1:re-grant op1>ositions.

72.'I'hc thlccWritPotition (C)Nos. 10399, 10400 and 10450 of 2009 arc clisrnissccl with costs of l{s. 20,000/- cach rvhich will bc paid by thc I'ctitioncr Zcphyr to l{cspontlcnl" No.l Lalit Maha.jan rvithin (bur wccks lrorn today. Conclusiorts in ll/rit Petition (C) No. 1020 of 2010 '

¶73Irr vicrv ol'wlrat has bccn hclcl abovc. tltc cotltnut'rication clatcd 2[J"' March 2008 writtcn by thc Contollcr to thc I'ctitioncr cannot llc hclcl to bc thc clatc of grant of thc patcnt. Il. was mcrcly a conrnuurication stating that thc application has bccp fonur{ in. orc{cr lbr grant. lL is not an otlcr to grunt patent. 'fhereltrre, when thc pre-flrilnt oppositioruuvas llled by Oipla Ltrt on 26tl'.lunc 2008 tlrere r,vas no p,rant of patclt by lhat clatc autl, thcrofbrc, such applicatiou was rnaintaiuablc in terurs of Scction 2.5(l) of thc Act. Althouglr tlrcrc is an otrscruation by thc (lontrollcr that aflcr 30tr' May 200ti thcre was no legal irnpediment in the (lorrtrollcr passing iur ordcl ftlr grant of patcnt bocausc on that datc tlrcrc was r)o p[o-glant opposition, thc fact remains that on filc no such orclcr rvas passed. ll. ciuux)t, thcroforc, bc said that thc filing of l.ho prc-greutt opposition ou 26'l' .lune 200ti by Cipla r,vas time barred.

¶74'l'lrclc is yct arrothcr ground Ior not crrtcrlairrine thc ltlca ut' ,h. w.,,.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70399, 7O40O & 70450 of 2009 & ;::"":rr:;:, n \l/ Pctitioncr. 'l'he challcnge is to an orcler retirsintrl the grant ol'paLcut u,hiclr ,/. / ,/l is rclatable to Seotion l5 o1'thc Act. 'l'his is appealable belirre thc tl'Al] q) J^ uudcr Section llTA of ths Ac:t as has bccn hckl by tlris (lourt irr {/C/l f|urchim Su v. Ciplo Ltd. 167 (2010) DI.'l'459.

¶75lror thc aforerrcntioned reasons, thc writ petition is dismisscd with costs ol'l{s.20,000/- nhiclr will bc paicl by thc Pstitioncr to ltesponrlcnt Oipla Ltd. withirr fbur wccks. Directions to the Contrnller of Putents

¶76'l'he C'ontroller of PntenLs will, within a pcriod ol' trvo wccks lklnr todily issue necessalJ lllaotioc dircctions/instmctions to all ollicers anrl i concernecl authorities in terurs ol'this jr"rclgmerrt ancl particularly in tcnns of what has bccn hcld by this Courl irr paras -55 kr .58 thclcol. Such practicc clircctions/ ins[r:ctions will also bc placcd sinrultanconsly on thc wctrsitc ol' thc (klnLr<lllcr of Patcnts. 'l'hcy will bc prospcctivc in tlrc scnsc thcy rvill not rcsult in thc rcopcning of oldcrs granting pat"cnt that havc attaLrcd linality. 7'l. A cctLifiecl copy of'this oruleluvill be rlelivererl to thc Controllcr of' Patents by a special n'lessenger ibrthwith for r:ornpliarrco. C}U. S. MTJRAI,IDIIAII,.I. ,f tJt,Y 15, 201(l tln W.P.(C) Nos. 3516, 3577,5422, 5423 ol 2007 & 1o3gg, 10400 & 704s0 ol 2"oog & 702.0 ol 2070 pogc 40 oJ 40

-{ I /$. I IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:29'h April and 3'd June, 2010 Decision on: 15th JulY, 20lO W.P. (O No. 10450 of 2009 ZEPHYR BIOMEDICALS ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari, Advocate' .VETSUS i. LALIT MAHAJAN & ANR. ""' Respondents Through: Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Saya Chaudhary and Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate for R-1. Vt. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr. Jatan Singh, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR