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) Snehtats C. Gupte v. (Jnion of India & Ors" along with eight connected writ petitions, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/- which will be paid by the Petitioner to Respondent No. l C-LalitMahajan within a period of four weeks. il A copy of the judgment passed in W.P. (C) No. 3516 of 2007 be placeC forthwith on the file. \-r, Ul 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. " t6 tt)Il IIV T'I{E I{nG[n co{J[tT' fxr DEn,x-II n"r t{[i,\4i lL)flt]l,l'illl Resetved ou: 29'l'April ancl 3"r -lrtttc. 2010 Decision ou:' [5tl' JrtlY, 20 | 0 . V\/.-P. (CI.l\o, l-516 of 2002 DR. (Miss) SNEHLATA C. GUPTE ... . l)oliliorrcr' ' Tluougli: Mr. Pravitt Auatrcl atrcl Mr'. -1. lja.p,tlr' -u,ith 1W-. Sagar Cha;rclra" Adrzocates. VEISUS trNIoN oF INDiif'3,ff, Ivr' Ruc,tir *,rf,ln''i'1il''"''' IzIr. Rahul Ja.iu, Advocates {br-R- | tu ll-il M.s. Pratibha M. Singh, z\chiocale lirr l{-5. -\tL ]tL@ I DR. (\4iss) SITEFILATA C.. GUPTE ..... I'c:lil ioncr' TluorLgh: Mr. Pra.vin Anartd ltrcl Mr'. .1. Iiagirr' wi tlr h/tr'. S aga r Clh a.n cl ra., A th,ocitl cs. I verstN LINION OF INDIA & ORS. . Reslronclertts 'Iluough : Ml. Rucbil Mislrr-a rry it li ivh. RahLrl Jain, Advocatcs lbr Tt- | to l{-.1 Ms. Pratibl:a M. Singh, Aclvocate lor l(-.'i $LP. (=C) No' 5:122 o{ 20,!Z -, DR. GIR.ISH J. RIND,^J{I . Pctitron('' Thlough: I\&-. Pravirt Artancl alrcl Mr'. -1. .tr[4ar' u'ith Mr. Sagar Cltatrdra, Aclvocatcs. VETSLIS . r.n\ITON OF INDIA & tlRf ..... l1esp<nclctt(rr Tluough: Mr. Ruc,hir Mishrer ra,itlr ifii Fi;lffl'; tffi:'ffi j::il;',,ilr 'T.1 W.n'. (C.) Ng.-5.[2? of ?0g7-DR 0"5ts) sNEHL;m,$ tH.t'ffi.,io A,,n',ct a,,,1 t'zi,ll-'ilfil ' with Mr'. Ijagar-Chaldra, Ach,ocirtes. tM.P.(cJ l\ios. 3376, esti,sazz, 542' of .20CI7 & 7a3gg, L04011 & 70450 {t 2009'Bt i0Z0 u! IIJ.U 1toge. .l tt.f 4t) '/*r . versus . i. LINION OF IhTDIA & ORS . " ftesportclettts Tluough: Mr-. Ruchir Mishra witlr ' Jvft'. Rahul Jain, Advocates for I{- I to ll-tl. .Ms. Prat'ibha M. Singh, Aclvocatc Ior l{:5. \ry;F-{qi No. 10J99 of ?009 ZEPHYR BIOMEDICALS ""' llelitiorrcr' Tllough: 1\4r-. Sanjeev l(Lrrnal''f iwitrr, Advocai.e . versus LAIIT MA-I-IAJAN & ANR, ..... Itc$lrotttlcnls IL', Tluough. A4r-. Maninder Singh, Senior Acivocate with iVs. .Saya Chaudhaly and ' lVir. Jaspr-eet Singh, Advooate [br I{- | . ' Mr. A.S. Chandhicl<, ASG vrith Tv[r-. Jatan Singh, CGSC fbr R-2. W.F. (C-) Ns. -1.0400 of 2009 ZEPHLR BIOMEDIC,AIS ... . l'ctilioncr' 'Tluough: A/ir-. Sanjeev I(ruuar T'irryari, Aclvocate. \/ersus . r LAr'Ir t*otTfliffi r,:lu{u cr,audharn^Jl;1'",'ttrcttrr; I\ft-. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate Ibr. I{- | . NIr. A.S.'Chandhiok, ASG ivith lVh'. Jatan Singh, CGSC IbL R-2. W.P. (-C-l F{o. n0459 of 2-0-09 . versus LAUT MAHAJz\N & ANR. .. .Rcsportclc;ttls . ThroLrgh: M-. Marinder Sirgh, Seniot' Advocate witli Ms. Sava Cha.ucliuu'r, rurc'i IVr'. ' ,ltt.PlQ N.os. 3576, 3517,5422, 5423 of 2007 & L0399, 1.0400 & 10450 of 2009 & 1"020 ol20J.0 \ '' ' t)ege 2 of 40 yl ,. Jaspreet Singh, Advoca.ie for tt-I ' IW-. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG rryith Mr' 'lit(att Singh, Advocate for R-2-W8.-LQJo= X-020.Pf 2 0x 0 rIB o r'c "'Tffi,{#frffifli}Hl:hiil, il *1tlii::. . Pradip 3m.rno and Mr-. Rupesh CLrpta' Advocates. verstls CONTROLLER OF PATENI'S,

¶4t* ASSISTANT CONTROLLER ) DESIGNS & I'RADE MARI(S & oRS "" Itesporrclotrts Tlrough: i\ft. A.I(. Bhalclrvaj witlr ffi {iffi.,,'Tltl' Aclvooates ror ir-t 't I(-2 IVh-. Saulabh Banerjee, Advocate f or l{'3' CO[tAN'n : JLtrSTtrCE S" N{URALIDI{{d[{ 1' whether reportets of loca'lp'ai'per llla)i' be allt'rra'ctl : L /.- ^ to see the judgnrcil? v/ ' ,r'' /'

¶2To be referred to the teportet'or rrot? \," ,u, ' 3. Whether the juclgrnent should be rel-err.ecl in tlrc digcsl'/ "' ) 'r l. The short b1t, interesting question of la.w cotllrlr()lr (o all tltcse petitions: When cair a patent be-saicl to be grautecl..rrndet thc Patcrrts Ac:|" , 1970 ('Act')? The question arises in the context of the distnissal ol'Pt'e-grant'oirpositions by the Controller of Pateuts.('Controllcr'') oll tlre ' grould that they were time-batrecl uuder Section 21. of the ,r\cl

¶2The factual backgror-urd in each set of petitions is neoessitry to lre sct . W.l.(c) Nos. 35!.6, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 8t 70399, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 7020 of 701(l Page 3.of 4(l ?%' to apprecia.te how tJre questiou atises [br clctel.lrtitrirtiotr itt out in order each of them. I& rit Feti.ti,ots Fetifioms)

(a) Nos. 3516, 3517, 5422 ancl 5423 t$'2$07 (X" ^Slct of' ,

¶3J. Mitra & Cornpauy Respondent No.5 in W.P- (C) hlo' 35 | 6 trl'2007 filecl two patent Application ldos. 590lDeIl2000 ancl 593lDell2000 irr tlre Cffice of tlre Controller on 14'l' Jnne 2000.1'he patcrrt slrocilicitiitrrls irwolved in the two applications were publishecl in the ollicial gazettc ott 20u' Norrember 2004 in telils of Section I l'A ol'tlte Acl. l\l tlrirt slitg,c" t, Section 25 of the Act ilacl,rnot'been arirended. Undet fict:liort 2ii tll'tlre pre-anendecl Act, arl .ollllositicri to the grant o.{'pateltt ltlrcl {o lrc l'ilctl u,ithil l'c1r, mouths ftorn fllat clay i.e., tlre cfate ol' ach'cttiscrircrlt (publication) which perioct cor-rld be extendeci by btte tttottlh uJron llre Controller being satisfied by the reasons given for suc.h delal'.

¶4Span DiagnoSlics Ltd. ('SDL') filecl a pre-grerut o;"rposilir:rir r,r,'lr'ic:lt c,arlle to be rejecl.eci by ihe Controller on 23"t Atrgu.sl. 200(;. 'l'lrr: operative portio4 of tire order passed bl, the Co,trollei reacls a:; u'tlcr': "In vierry of the alrcve cliscussion ancl in cousicleLuli<ltt of tlie submissions of both the parties. I hereby ortlel' to grilnt [Patent hTo. 194639] on Pa.tent .r\pplicatjorr lrlo. 590/De1/2000 with the following cortditiotr . ) The Applicants shall give cross tefbrettcp to the lrzrtelrt application no. 593iDeI/2X00 or1 page 2 t.rl' tlr'": c.ornplele specif)ca.tion ancl strbnt it tl.r,; amend.ed/retypecl pzige(s) within a. rveek lionr the rlalc: of these orcler. Tlie Opposition oit Patent Alrplioltiotl lAi.P,tC) I\tos,3576, 9577,5422, 5423 o! 2007 8t 1.0ggg' 10400 & 1045O .o! 2OO9 " :r:;:"j,:;:: 23' , No. 590/Dell2000 (194639) is disposecl of in abovc tertns. No order to cost."

¶5In terrns of Section 43 of the Act, where the applicatjolr lirl a llalctlt has been foiurcl to be in orderfor grant of patertt'ancl iI'thc irllPlir:trtitltr iras eiiher 1ot been reftised by the Controller or h.as'nor tr".,, lottrrtl itr contrarrention of the Act, the patent shall be grantecl as ex;reclitiotrslf il5; possible '"rvith the seal of the patent office aud tlre clate ort u'lticlt tlte " pat6nt is granted shall be enterecl in the Register". Utrcler"Set:ti<lrr zl-|(2), upotl tliE glant of patent, the Controller "shall publish the lhct thal tho I patelt hl, b."n grantecl and thereLrpon the application, spccilicati<.rti ilrrtl , t other docnments related thereto shall be open for public irrsl"tcctiorl"'' UncLer Rgle 55(5) of the Patents Rules 2003 ("Rules'), the Clolrtroller rvill examine the stateruelrt.urd evirJenc.e filed by the applicant ({irl' tlro grarlt Of patent) orrd. may .either refhse to grant the pa.terrt tlt' t'ct;rrit'c thc conflete specification.to be amended to his satisfaction Lleforc lhc Pirierrt is grantecl. Under Ruie 55 (6), tlie Cclnttoller slrali, atler ct.rttsriderinir, lhc o,',Y; o,tr-l srltltttissiott'q representalion (i.e. the pre-grellt oppositiott, if macle clr-rri1g the hearing if so requestecl, l'proceecl llu'tircr-sirnLrltaircotrsllt either rejectirrg the represen.ta.tiotr aucl grauting the ;:ateltt ot' tlc'oeP(itrg' the representaticn and refusing the grant of patent on tltal altlllicaliorr, ordinarily withiu .one montlt korn 'the cotlrpletiotr ol' llro fllrot'c proceedings".

¶6Itisthec.aseof theRespouclentNq.5.I.Mjtra. &:Co.that rryltcrr otr'2.i"| A.trgdst 2006 the Controller rejectecl the pre-gran1. oppo:;itiort ['iletl l11' ttv.p.(C) Atos. 35L6, 35.77,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 1.ogg9, 70400 & 10450 of 20og n iltztt o,f 20L0 page 5 ol 40 "I . tr)' SDL and in fact in the order used tlre woi:ds "I here[r)' ortler' lo grirrrt patent.,.", this was simultaneotLs with the re.iection ol' thc ;lt'c-g,ratlt opposrtron rn terms of Rule 55(6) of the Rules aucl, therelbrc, 23"' Atrgrrsl 200G was the date o1 which the patent wa*S grante<J to -1. Mitrl.r & Coutpany.

¶7On t1e very lext day, t.e.24.tt' August 2906 Dr. Srrbhlata Citrllte, tlte .' petitioner i1 W.P. (C) No. 3516 of 290i , filed a pre-grarlt oppt:siliolr t'i,s-a-ttis,Patent No. 194639 filed by -t. Mitra & Ca: A.ccor.clitrg to Dr Ctrptc, in terms of.the.aurenclments introcluced in Seclion 2.5(l) ol'tlre At:t [r)' : rvay of the Patents (Amenclment) Act,2005 with efl'ec{. Ii'orlt l'' .laltttitl'.)' 2005,the trme period for filing a pre-grant oppositiou sttiocl extcncletl till tl:e gr-a1t of the patent. Accorcling to the Petitiorrer, the lratelt[ rvtts ttot granted till such time it was not sealed aild entetecl in the l{ellistcr in Lerrus of Section 43(I) of the Act. It is stated tltat.as ort tltc dalc ol'llrc filing of the pre-grant opposition by Dr. Gupte, L.e.24t'August 2006, tlrc patedt in favour of J. Mitra & CotrrpAny lrad not beett grairtctl sirtc:c il lta<l .not yet been sealed.and entered in the Register. ,' B. On 5tr' September 2006, Dr. Girish Rjndani, the Petiliorrer irr Writ t Petition (C) No. 5422 oiZOOI filecl a pre-grant oplrosition rzrs-i)-r,is tlrc .paient application of J.Mitra & Co..

¶9It is not-in dispute that i:he Pa.tent No. 19tl639 gt-antecl to .1. Vlitta <k. Conrpany was entered in the Register on 22"'t SepLenrber 2()06. Pirtcrr[ W.P.(C)'Nos. s5L6, 3577t5422t 5423 of 2Oo7 & 7O399, 7O4OO & 7O45O of 2OOg & L020 af 20L.0 Page 6 af tlQ ) ) fif' l$q. I g4'53g grautecl to it was enlered in the ltegister olt 2.7rr' Sclrlcrnbct' 2006. Certified'copies of tlie relevant entrjes in the l{egiste; i',,tve lrcct, placed on recorcl. In teuns of Section 43(2) of the Acl" the. sititl ltvtr petitions of J, Mitra r3c Cornpany were published in tlre .ltltrt'ttlil o[' tlrc . Patqnt Office clated ITtl'Noveurber 2006.

¶10On 16tl'October 20b6, flre pr.e-grant opposition of botlr lrctitjt,rrcis ., were rejected by the Controller ori the ground of nrairrtalnaltiliti,. 'l'lris; was done, irowever, rvithout affolcling the two Petitiotte.t's all ()l)l)(lt'trrltil.l' of being heard. On.31't October 2006,.both Petitioners'vvt'tttc to tlte controller seel<ing a hearing belbre.' re-iectiort ol' the pre-gt'itrtl oppositiorrs. On 23'.t January 2007.,the Coutr-ol lei gratrtecl t hc l)ct it it) ncr'.s a lrear-iitg. 'Ihereaftef on 30tl' April 2007 ancl-3"1 May 2007" u,r'itlcrr statements were filed a.nd subrnissions were ach,ancecl bv.trotlr tlrc Petitioners before the Coritr-oller.

¶11Writ Petjtjol (C) Nos. 3516 a1d 35 l1 of 2007 \,r/c;c flle<l [r), l)r'. Snehlata Gupte challenging the order datecl '16t1' Octotrcr' 2000 with reference to the Pa.tent lrlo, 1911639 aud 194638 respectivel),. ()n 22."" Mai, 2997, the Controller passed fi-esh orders rejecting ih,l pre-B,r'arrt oppositions of the Petitionets otr the ground that thg opp()sitiorrs \^/cle. lime-baneci. Both Petitioner-s i.e. Dr. Rindaui arrcl Dr. Gupte chrllongccl tlie said ord.r Catecl 22"d Mai, 2007 by friing Writ P'e,titior:r (C) lrtos. 54 )2 and 5423 of 2007 resi;ecti.rely. W-P,(C) t\!os. 3576, g577t5422t s42'3 of 2OO7 & 7T3gg, 7O4OO & 70450 of ZO09 & l0Z0.a! 201.0 pttge / o.f 40 O) I 2. The above petitions have been resisted by Respotrdenl Nlti. 5 -1. N4ilLa' & Co.'ft is coutelclecl that the order o.F the Controllel' was oolrliistettt u'i{lt tire correct positiol in larry. Accorcling to Respotrdent No.5, lhe tllirrg ol' tire two pre-grant opposrtigns b1, Dr. Gupte aucl Dr. I{inclarti tvrts ,,1*',, ,,,t abuse of tire prbcess of law. It is ailegecl by J. Mitra Br Clo. tlrirt SiDl,' rryhich js i1 the blsiness of sale ancl purcha.se of vnrious lthat'rttitr-:r:trlit:ttls proclucts, is a habitual infringer aud is deliberatell' alrcf t:ottsciott:sl)' violatilg various intellectual properties of J. Mitra & Co. SDl, is allcg'ctl .. to be coltinuing to infnnge the rights of Respomclent hlo.5 uriflr irrrprrnily. .} . It is oontended that each and every product in respect oJ'r,r'lriclr "1. Mitrrr : Bt Co.has applied folancl/or has beeu grantecl a.pateltt is cithcr' ltcirrg opposed or infi-inged by SDL.

¶13Patent hlo. 194368 is for an invention titled."A Devic.:e lbr llrc detectioir of antibodies of Hepatitis C virus in hurnan selultr l'ttttl 1)lastttrt''. .Pa.tent No. 194639 is for an inventi.ou titled "A device ibr tlic rlctcction of Hepatitis C virns". Atler the grhrrt of the afot:eltretttionecl piitorrts irr its .favour, .I. Mitra &. Co. fileci Cirril.Suit (OS) No. 22020.o1'20()O irr this Court against l(esar Menclicarnents (KM) aricl SDL ior' llittcrrt infi-ingement. By t judgrnent clated 22"d February 2008. tlrjs Cour{ granted an injunction restlaining KM ancl SDL {i-orn ttrarrttltir;ttrrirrg,, sellir:g, offer-ing for sale their I-ICV Sigiral or alry other. pt'otluot wlriclr ,was in infi'ingbrnent of J. NIitra & Co's Pateut lrlo. l9l1638. lt il; s(alctl that jn tire saic] suit'SDL ha.q filecl a couuter clajnr for 1s1;1rc?r[iorr ol'tltc lratent. lAt.P.(c) Nos. 3516, 351"7,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70ggg, 70400 & 1.0450 of 2009 Bt 1.020 of 20tA . ' puge B n.[ 4O */, I Swbnissiofis af Cott.nsel i,tt tlrc I" Set o.f peti'tions lW-.F. (C) No' 3516 M' 2$07 etc.!

¶14Appearilg for J. Mitr-a & Co., Ms.Pratibha Singh, leitrrtetl c;t)ttrtsicl, subinitted that both Dr. Snehlata Grpte un,i Dr. Rinclaui all-e o()llncctecl to SDL. Dr. Gupte is stated to be running the Surat l{al<taclarr lt endra. tltc .Chairman of which is M.. Pradeep I(. Desai whir is the '; , Chairman/lvlaira.giirg Director of SDL It is statecl that l)r. (-ittPte rvas aware of SDL's opposition io J. Mitra & Co's pateuts. Ms. Sirrglr lroilrtctl out that upon the said pre-grant ojlposition being r-e..Jectec"l ott 23''l Atlgrrtit 2006 the patent hacl to proceed lor.registration. Florvevet, io cotttitttre tlte serial.oppositious, first Dr.Grqlte filed a'pre-grant oppositiott on tltc rrot'.y next day i.e. 24Lt'Arigust 2006.. Dr. Rinclanj, who js a.lso sta{ed to lrc te pre-grattt oppositjolt oli 5tl' S.cptcnrtrer connected to SDL, filed a separate pre-grant oppo 2006. It is sgbnitted that the filing of selial oppositlotts tr1, l)ersorrs r:omrected to SDL after its pre-grant opposition hacl been reier:tecl uras malafide and if such app'licatlions'vvere pginrittecl to tre ertlel'lrtittccl, Ilrct'c would be no end to the filing of such pre-grant oppositions pxtrtir-:ulirrl1, since after the amendment to .Section. 25(1) iu 2005" ir llt'c-gt'itttt ollpositioll can be filed by .any persont I! ]r sLrbmittecl tlrat il-lltc stirnil Of the'Petitioners is accepted, it Would defbat tLre objectirre ol' tlrc At:t rvhich is to grant a patent rather than refusing it. \

¶15Ms. Singh forntecl out thq! in the rejoinder to its courttct'a{-lltlavit, tlrc Petitioners do not deny that Dr. Gupte is connected. to SDl,. ll is otrl1, stated thqt such averntents ate mjsleading "attd lhat thelr ltrtve rto bcarirrg on Lhe present case".'It'is further pointed out that Lhe petitionors.coittcrtcl IM.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5429 oI 2007 & 71gg4 7O4OO & 7O45O of 2009 8t L02o.ol )-01.0 page. 9 af 40 qx' - i1 the rejoincler that "it is imntaterial for the purposes 0f the ;ll'cscrrI t'r't'iI petitiol whether a person wlro files a ple-grant oppositiorr is rect.lt'tlccl trl or not recorded who is interested iir the coucernecl pateltt beirrg op;losetl"- '

¶16Rdferrilg rb tlie, decision in K.D. Slnarnut 1iOOS1 12 SCC 4{il. Nls.Singh subntitted that the Petitioners ltave, b)'" ttot disclosilrg tlrcir .rela.ticnship rvith SDL, not corle to the Court u,itlt cleart ltattcls rttrtl, therelbre are cLisentitled to the reliefs playecl for in tlte wl'it ltctititlrrs. r Refening to an" decisions in tslmgutin.ii.' fr/isltot,ii ?"lmkkat' I'. t\' .poovtnrntnnrlra. fn.nurlrllni Pa.ta.clia (l ggS) 2 6'I-lt 1 43'il itrt<l Entertaiwnent Nefiuot"lc ([ndia)' [-f.cl. t:. Swpbr Cassette {nrlrustries' tr,trl.

(2008) 13 SCC 30 it is strbmittecl that a purposive cottsU'urctiotr rvotrlcl irarze to be adopted and it has to be ireld that iu ternrs ol'ltulc.55 (t)) ol' the Rules read witl.r Sectioir 43 (1) of tlre Act the prrl.ent is grrrrtlctl (ittc,c an order to that effect is passecl by the Controller siiuultaneous u,itlr lire rejec.tion of the first set of pre-grant oppositions which are clec:irlctl l-r), lhe !,. Controllei. lt is subrnittecl that tlrere has to be arr otrter tirrre linrit lbr' ,filing a. pre-grant oppositiou wliich in arr-y event catruot be lrc],ortcl lhc . date of the Controller passing an orcler on file gr.antirrg tlte l.ratertt. 't'lrc s.aling and entering of the patent :in the Register irre nlel'e rninistcrial ucr{s r,'rhich make no clifference to the da,te of the grant of tlre pa.Lcnt. I

¶17N4s. Singh refers to an order. dated 2"'r Mhrch 2,009 ;titssc:il b1, 11,. t Snprerne CoLrrt ih SLF (Civil) l{o. 3522 of 20.09 ([n,r{i.an. Nc'fiporlr.' l;'or I ,Feoplewi.tlr I{Ift/,Ai.ds v. F. Ho.ffntann-X,ir ntoche,r"trG) rvhiolr iu'ose (i'orn w.P.(c) Nos. 3576, 3577,s422, SAZ\ if ZOOT & il399,.L0400 & 10450 of 2009'& L020 of 20'1(l plrge 70 of 4{) 21 , n! an orcler dated 30tl'January 2009 passecl by the Asststalt Clorrtlolli:l o[' parelts. This was heard with SLP (Civil) No. 29857 of 200tt Iilecl agairrst tlre juclgrnent claiecl 2"d December 2008 of the Maclras lligh C'tttrt't reported as Xndian. IYefwork (r Feof le with' trdftt/"'l,itts tt" Xr' lIrillinvnu-La Rocp.e AG INryIPR 2009 @ A016.I3y the saicl iuclgrnettt tlte Matlras J.Iig5 Cogft set a'sicle an orcler granting Roche a pateut wiLhotrt clislloriilrg 9f the pre-grant oppoiitiols filed b), the Indian Networ1< '[or l)cople tvitlr l-IIV/Aids nnder Section 25(1) of the Act. Therealter by ln orcler clatccl 3gtr' January ZO0gi the Assistant Controller re.lectecl the llrr:-gratrt opposition. The Supreme Conr[ without going into the rncrils ol' tlrc contentions ttrai the Petitioners were deprivecl 0f an opllorttrlritl' o(' raising before the Contr-oller nnrnetous contentiol'tFs ol1 tlerits, rlbscl'vctl that theli could be given p"rir.irrion to file on ul'ticlavit arrtl raise lrli con.tentions at the stage of post-gra.nt oppositions u,ltich hacl alt'catll, trecrr filed and were pencling belole tbe Controller. On the sh'e.rrgth ol' tlrc above order, it is submiite{ by leamed connsel fcrr .t. Mitrr .fL Co. {ha( pDL itself could file. post-grhnt opposition before the Controllct' arlcl" lherefore, no prejudice was.cansed by the gtalt of patcrit to thc Respondent No. 5 by the orclgr-cla.ted 23'n Atgtrst 2006. lrt itttl' e\uclll, SDL has also filed a counter-claim in the suit seel<irg tevocation rlf'tltc pateut. l B. IW. Plavin Ar1a3d and Mr-. J. Sagar, learned cotmsel lbr l)r'. (iuP(c anc1 Dr. Rirrdani, on the other hand, pointecl out to tl.re plea raisccl jn the plaint in C.S. (OS) No.2020 of 11006 filed by the.Resl:ontlcrrt Nlc.5 .1. W.P.(C) Nos. i576, i577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & tOggg, L0400 & 70450 of 2009 8t 102o af Zoto poge J.7 of 40 ). 3'' Mrtra &. Co. there is a clear adrniision to the been grantbd on 22ttd Septenrbet 2006-unclerstanding of J.Mitra & Co. itself. effecl that thc llatettt hercl This . was therejrrre tlre ,i

¶19Learned connsel for the Petitioners also attackecl the bonallcles ol'-1. 'Mitra &Co. alleging that it Was an infinger which hacl appliecl lbr arrcl obtained a plethora. of patents'which were in fact copies ol' liaterrls itrrcl proclucts available rvorlclwitle atcl itr Inclia. tt is sttbtuittect tlrat tlre two pateirts rn question relate to a thrd and fotrrth genetatron device ltlr lhe cletectiol of HCV altiboclies in the hurnal serutll aucl plastrra. lJoth thc patents were irnitations of a patent obtailed by a US colllptlll)/" l-:Y .Laboratories, in lggl.I{owever, since EY Laboldtories clicl rrot havci a patenf iu India., proceedings could not be institutecl against.f . tVlitl'a & Ljo. for infi'ingement.

¶20It is subrnitted by learned coirnsel for the petitionbrs that all clairns ol .I. Mitra & Co. filed in the United States Patent OIIce lratl Lrecrr rc.jcr;tcrl on the grorurds of obviousness and insuf'ficiency. It is pbinterl orrt Lr1, 1y1''. Aland that Respondent No. 5 hacl originally applied tbr lhc pittcrrls itr qr-restion with 14 claims followed by'reduction of clainrs to 7 al'ler r,r,lriclr tlie patent wais publishecl for opposition with the saicl 7 claiur.s. Wlren tlrc ;ratent was granted on 22"d Septeurber 2006, it was grantecl Jbl zl clairrrs. Claim L o.flthe 4 claims is statecl to be differeut liom tlre publiisherl CJairrr ' '[. Even after acknorvledgiug this to be a rnistake in its orcler clzrtccl 2.1''l Augtlst 2006, the Patent Olfice has not publishecl lhe. clairnrr lur' . W.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 7045O of 20Og & 1o2o ol 2o1o poge 1.2 ol4A Oi sf , opposition. It is stated that after the orcler clatecl .23''r Atrgtrrl{'2()C)6' tlre patelt office was turcler obligatiorr not to glant the pzrtent rvitlrirt llrlcre nonths of tfu.e statltory period of appeal so that an aggtievecl part-ir cgrtltl file a1 appeal. It is alleged tha.t the entire process of gra.nt ol';la(ent rvtrs d.one in a quick and clandestine iltaurrer so that tto olle wotrJtl l<lttllv atrorlt the sarne. 2L.It is subrnittecl by i\4r. Anand that the diagnostics ltit irrtltrstry is a ; \/ery slnall and close knit a.nd "evet-yore kuows everyolle irr this llclcl"- Claiming to bo among the leading scientists in their field" the l)etitiorrcrs state that "it is 1ot only their ch.rty but also their resporrsitrililt, lo elrstrrc ilra.t no unscrlrpulons trader usullls rights of other parties ul' ltlirlillltlely stops olher parties involvecl iu thjs fielcl." It iS sLrblrrittctl tlrat tlrc ilteution of the Petitioneis is "not to sta.ll the gi'a.rlt o1' ;:aLelrts brrt ttl tr')' . and ensure that no wrongful'patents are gtauted to urtsct'ultultlLts lr'atlers i1 the ilterest of the public"; It is submittecl tlrat a. patelt{ is a c;orltl.rlctc nronopolistic riglit and should be granted only aftel'clue cottsiclerttliotr. It ' is for this reason tha.t the legislatr.rre has built in varior-rs safegttitrcls lil<c pre-grarrt opposition, post-grant opposition, revoca.tious, cottrttcr-clilj trr for revocations and defences bf reriocatjou in a suit lor infii,tg",,.l",rt. It is stated tfiat the rvorcls of the statute are clear and tjll suclt littrc tlrc grarrt of the patent is nrade known by tJre publication iu the ollicial glz,etlo. it : cannot be said tc have been gtarrtec[ in la.w. ti is also poitrtecl otrt that llro .interpretation canvassed by counseI for Lospondent. lrlo.5 '"t'as ct)lltt'ilt'1r 1,, the crurent practice of the Controller's office aticl rvoulcl leril to :t g,teerl W.P.(C) Nos. i5i.6.. 3577,5422, 5423 'of 2007 & 70399, 70400 & L0450.of 2009 & 1020 of t-olo poge. l3 of 4Q ) oq. ,)n ' deal of avoidatr-le confusion. f7rit Fefitiort 6Cl":lVos. 103 9, 10400 artct 10450 petitionsJ 20'09 [2"'t sr'[ o{' iA

¶22The r-eleva.nt facts are that Latit Mahaja.n Responclent No. I irr all thc Above writ petitiols filecl threg patent applicatiotts. tor grartt of paterrts being Applicationr Nos. 16BBlDell2007, 1689/Dell2001 on 8tr' ALtg'trs( 2007. In Application No. 1688 o1'20Q7,the inveutjon.relalctl lo a ilevicc for analysing the presence of Dertgue IgG antibodjes itl htrrtralr scrtrlrr and plasma. Application No. 1689 of 2007 relatecl.to the irtvcution ol'a kit for alalysing the preserce of deugue IgM antiboches ill llte ltttttlatt serlun or plasrna. Lalit Mahajarr also.filed two othel' applic:rtiolrs bcirrg l4lDell2005 and 75tDell2005 on [2tlt Jamrary 7005 iri relaliort lo a l)rrtt N4alaria. Stix and a Tetra Malaria fitix respectively Jbr testirrg ol'rirrrlirria.

23.LalitNiaha;an's Application lrlu. 16BB/Deli 2007 was lltrblislred irr tlrc' Jonrnal on,3l't August 2007 The patent was granted and ivas nlso sealccl on 16tl'October 2008. A pre-g1ant oirposition u,as filecl by the pc{ititttrcr Z,e.pbyr Biornedicals ('Zepir),r') ou 12tl' Decetnber 2008. 'l'trc 1"t'e-grartt rrpposition was rejected on 4tl'Marcli )OOg. Thjs orclel was clrlllerrgetl'l11' Zephyrin Writ Fetition (C) IrTo. iO:qg of 2909.

¶24LalitMahajan's Applica.doir 1rTo. 1689/Del l20Cl rvas ptrbli:ihetl ott'7'r' Septembet 2007.. Tlre pa.tent.rva.s lranted and'sealecl orr l(itr' ()ctobcr' , 't r!. 2008. The.pre-g'aut oppositiol rvas filecl by Zephl/r' oll. l?"' l)e,:ettrbcr 2008. It was rejected on 4r'Mruch 2009. This order wels challertgc<l by ltl.P.(t:) Nos. 3576, 3577,54.24 5423 of 2007 & 70s99/ 10400 &. 70450 of 2009 & :1020 o12010 Page L4 of 40 c) s3, Zephyr in Writ Petition (C) No 10400 oI'2009. '.25. LaIitMahajan's Applications No. 7 4lDel12005 and 1 5 IDelI )005 rvere prLblished on 2"d June 2006. The patent was gl'autecl ancl. seal,:t[ ott l(rrr' October 2008. The pr-e-grant.opposition was filecl b), Zelrh)'t' ott Zlltr' Norrember 2008. It was rejected by the Controllet'on l(r(r'Mat'r-'lr 2009 'fhis orcler was ch.allengecl by Zephyr by filing Writ Petitiorr ((l) No. 10450 of2009 I ./- Swbnrissions i.ru the 2"'t Set af petifions (b1t Zephyr)

¶26The argnrnents advanced by ffi'. Sa.njeev'I(uttrerr '['iwitri, lerl.l'tlctl counsel appearing for Zephyr against the orclers of the (.'otttroller' rejbcting its pre-grant application.on the ground of linlitaticlrt \;vere lrror'o or less sinilar to the arg,rm.nts aclvanced by counsel a;rpearing Ior Dr'. Snehla.ta Grrpte and Dr. Girish Rindani in relation to th.e patcrrts tr4r'anlecl . to J. \4itr-a & Co. i

¶27Ittresisting the petitions, it was submitted by.Mr. Marrirrrler Singh, Iear-ned Selior counsel qrpearing for Lalit Mahajarr tlral irllcr tlr<; Amendment to the Act in 2005; the tiure period for filing a pt'c-grant opposition rrray have been Leru.oved but a reasonabJe interpretatiorr lta.s lo be given to. the amended Section 25 keeping in view tlte cotrtcxt. l-lc: pla.ces empha.sis on the words "nrlless !h.e context othet'wisc t-ecluircs" occuring in the openiirg portion of Section 2 (1) oF the Act ancf subrnits that the locus to challenge'a patent that has been grantecl gets rcstrictcd to tM.P.(c) Nos". j576, ss77,5422, 5423 of 2007 & L0399, 70400 & 70450 of 2009 & 1020 of 201.0 page :15 of 4o 3\, \ -}' .. a person interested He. submittect that considering that thc gl'irltt o[' a pa.telt is a recognition of tire creative rarork of the invetttel', atltl hlls {r] pass a fairly rigorpus exarnination procedure .tltrougli sevcral $ltrgcs whicfu. by its very nalure is time cortsuurittg, a. realsol'lir,blc Pcritltl its opposed to air iuclefinite open-eucled periocl,has lo be givetr lill' tlrc Iilirrg of,a pre-gr-ant'opposition, which is by any person. ig. I{t'" Mzurinder-Singh pointed otit that the scherne ol'tlre Act artrtl tltc Rtrles inclicated that the serrereil acts leacling to ttre grartt ol' (llc pirterrt certificate wete'1.o be performecl within specific tirne periocls l(cl'cirirrg [o Rnle 74 (z)of the Rules lre submjttecl that a patetrt certif icirtc is; lti [rc: ordinarily issuecl witlrin severi days fi-orn the clate of grartt ol'glaterrt uttdct' Secticn -[3.'tJnder Rule' 24, Lheperiod for which an a;rplictttiotr lor ;iirlcrrt shall not ordinarily be. operr to public turder Sectjon I I A( [ ) sha ll be | [t rnonths fiom the date of filing of application oi' th" clate o{'priorit.), o(' application, whicheu"i is earlier. In t"rnl, of ltule 24-B( lXi) u reqttcsl 'For examination under Section llB of the Act is nracle-rvithin,f u rnorrllrs fi-orn tlie date of priority of'thc application or fiottr the clal"e oI-lilirtg ol-tlre application rvhichever is.earUer. Under Rule 24-B(2) (i)" tlrc: pcriod within which the Coutroller shall refer the application ancl :llrecilit:rt.iorr aucl other docurnents to the .Examiuer vvhere sucli rt:r;rrc:sl f or' exarni0ation has been made shall ordinarily be rryrthin.one rttorrtlt lhrrr Lhe datg of its publication ,or r.vithin o.ue nrorrth ll-onr tlre tlate oI exainina.tion, whichever is later. . Under Rule 24-B (2Xii), tlre ll,xarrrrrrcr shoulcl orclinarrily. suburit the repolt within one nron(h but rrot oxcer:dirrg U||.P.(C) Nos. 35L6, ,rrr,rurL, 542J t f 2007 & tOJss, to4o0 & totso cif Joos & ia2o o.f zoJo puge 16 of 4A t. "/ three nronths fiom the clate of reference and. thereaftel tlre Colltt'ollcr' shoqld, in accordance witli Ruip 24-B (2xiii), clispose cil-tlrc r"cllot'l within one molth of. its ."""ip,. Uucler Rlle 24-B (3). Llrc lirst ': examination report.is sent to the applicant r,vithin six lttorrtlt.s li'tlrrr tlrc rJate of request for exantina.tion or publica.tion rryhichever is ltrtcr itrttl nnder Rule 24-B (4), the time for putting an afplication ilt orcler fur' grarrt lmcler Sectrori 21 shall be trvelve rnonths fi-om the clate ott u,lticlr thc lLst ,t .sfaternent of objection is jssupcl Lo, the applicant to contlll], ra,itlt llrc reqriirdments.. It is submittect tha.t given the sp'ecificd lirrrc ljrrrits presciibed at the stage of scrutiny of the applica.tions ['br grarrl ol'pa{cn( ancl given the fact thdt the grant o['a. per.teut relates bacl< to tlie tlrttc: otr rvhich the application is filed, the patentee hc[ually loses lttttcll ol'{lri.s .period for working the palent. Given the fact thzrl arr applicittiorr lor' grant of patent c;an get,published only after a periocl. of lB trtottllts ittrrl that the Controlleir cannot talie up the applicatiorl lor exiuninatiorr liu a period of six inonths after its ptrblication, it is u"""ssur), i1r rcatl i.l reasonable time limit for filiug h pre-grant oppos.ition. ReJ:brencc is nrirclc: to the decisjons in'surjit Singh trtiul.ra tp. [Jrti.on o.f lrlcli.n (Iggt) 2. ^SC(' 87 and Directorate of En"l'orcement.v. Deepulc Adakaiu,rt tl,trR X994 ^5'(' 177s. Writ Fetition (C) No. 1.020 af 2MA

¶29The petitioner-Tibotec Phannaceuticals ("f ibote<;') filcc! its application for giant of pateut on 1.1'l'J.u:" 2004 Lor an irrvcrrtiorr titlcrl 'Cornbination of Cl'tochorne Paso Depeirdent Prolea.se luhjbilors'. 'l'lrcr VV.P.(C) ftos. ESIO, 35L7,5422t 5423 oI'2007 & L0ilgg, IOiOO A fi450 Qf 2009 &. 1.020 of 20L0 i ' .poge 17 o.[ 40 3f' 'i .;) <€' " (-/ first exanination report was issuerl on 14tl'March 2001. 'l'ho aPPlicirtion , '. rvas published on 30tlt November.200l in terms of Sectiorr llA ol'tlrc Act. After considering the response of th'e Petitioner irt rcply to tlre l'irst examina.tiol report, the Qontroller issuecl a letter io'tJre Potititlrrct' tllt 2[1"' ' March 2008 to the following effect: ' "Yoilr above Application for pa.tettt has beett li:trlrd i1 order for gra1t. Hor,irever, the Patelt celtificale will .be issuecl gnly after processing of the .ApplicationunderSection.ll(a)|.,ricll,4litlrcl .i cornpletion of tire statutory limit, aucl clisposal ol-pre-grant opposition, if any, nuder Section 25(.1) oi' the Act." .

¶30The petitioler.'s case is that on 3Otl'May fggg, the mancltttot-1r pcricld of six rqonths in terms of Rule 55(1-4) of the.Ittrles atrcl thc llrrce conclitions i1 the aforementionecl .letteir stood satis.lied. Accorcllng to tlrc Petitioner', the patent was deemed to have been grantec[ ll'olrl strclt clale

¶3101 26tl' Jnne 2008, Cipla Ltd. filecl a pre-gra.nt relir"escrrlatittrr/ o- .y opposition. This was notified to the Petitioner fiont the Delhi O{'l'icrc ol' Ithe Controller. ilte Petitioner, by its letter clatecl 2l*tOctr-rbr:r 200t1, poilted ont to the Controller that the pre-grant oppclsitiorr \,vas lirrrc-barred. The Petitioner also filed all interlocutor! 1:etition clatccl l0tl' November 2008 praying for issr-rance of a patent certific;a{.e ilr i(s Ibvotrr' and for rejecting the opposition filed by Ci1:la. I-tc[. 'l'herealier'llre Petitioner also filed an afficlavit of evidence on Ttr' Janulrtl, 2009 ol'orre ' Professor David Jolrq Back. W.P.(c) Nos. j516, 3577,5422, 5425 of 2007 & L0399, 1"0400 & L0450 of 2009 B, 7020 of )-o1o poge 18 uf 4l) 37' /

¶32The Petitioner and cipla Ltcl. rvere heard by the Assjstant ctllrtrQllet' of Patents on 9'l' Januiiry 2009-ancl written subnrigsiolls \^/el'e liletl lry tlrenr on 27tl'March 2009. By an ord"er dated 30tl'March 2009' tlre Assistant Controller allowecl the p1e-gra1t opposiiiorr arrrcl relirsett to tlrc: Petitioner the grant of the patent on the ground oI la.cl< of iltrrcrtllvc s[e1l' Tlre controller's orcler datecl 30tl' N'{arch 2009 lras. been challelrgeil try Tiilotec jn this petition. Ailiong the gtounds l'aised in this petititln is llrilt the pre-grant opposition filed after 30t1'May 2008 was not rna.ilrtainafule' Swltwtissions of Cor'msel' hn Tibotec's petitiort

¶33IVfi-, Rajiv Nayyar, lear-'ed. Se'ior:conusel appeall'g for tlrc l)r;liii'ttor' Tibotec submitted that there was a' clistinctiotl betweett lhe 'issiiattce' ttl-lt patent certificate r-ilder Rgle l4 anc. the "grzmt' o1'l.ra'tetlt {ilr tlre l)Lf t?('1'ses .of Section 43'. FIe also referrecl to the inptrgnecl'orclet'lllt:isccl tl1' 11'* Assistant co[troller wher-e it was observed" tha.t '"thclc \4;irri n(') imp.edirnent on"30tl'May 2008 to tlie issuance oJ'tlre perteut ccr'lilica.l,e trrrcl that the patent office shoul.,l have done so.r.vithin severl cla.y:r rll'3()tr' N4ily 2008 as.the application was publishecl ou 30'l'Novenrber'2001 arttl s;ix rro'ths lreriod was over o' 30tl' May 2008". .It u,ers frrther rltlserrrerl irt tire iilpugnecl orcler that the gtant of patent by the Corrl-l'ollcr irrrcl tlrc subsequeirt issualce,of letters of patelt have take1.lnol'e' tinrc thtrrl it co'ld have talcen orclinarily but tha.t did not preclucle the liling QI'a p|c-grant oprposition. It is acc.orclingly sLrburittecl that for itll practioal plllpose."s the.effective clate of gralt of the paleut sboult{ lrc "i()rr' Mitv 2008 or.the verll ue.xt day thereafter. ; w.p-(c) Nos. is66, i577,g422, 5423 of 2007 & 70399, 704.00 & 70450 of 2009 & L02-0 of 2070 -t-\"'l 3s,

¶34Ivfr-. Majunclar, learnecl counsei appearing for Cipla Ltcl. itrtrnrittotl that a.t the siage of filing of the application ernd its exautitralion irr irritilrl phase. by the Controller, there 1/as no thir-d parfY f lre Corrtroller ai;ts its a.fact fi1di1g authority. Section 3. of the Act sets.oLrt tlte grOtrrrcls lirr' reftisal. If the patent is refused, the orcler is relata.ble ttl Sectiorr l5 ttl'llrc Act. The Controller could ask for an a.tr. endtnettt to be uracje criett al tltitI stage. ' Tlte iltimation that the patent is in orcler is not bj, its.el('a grarrt ol' patent. This is an ordel relatabie to Section 15 of the Act. Accottlirlg trl lrinr" tlib stage of Section 43 for grant of paterrt is reaohecl clrrly tr.l.lcr' corrrpletionoftlretr)rocessesenvisa.gedb],Sectionl5cftlreA<;1.1.llrtlcl. Section.45, the date of palent.i.s a.lrea.dy a fixecl clate sirtce rttttlcr'.Scctiorr 45 (1) "ievery patent shall be datecl as of the clate. ott whiclt the aplrlicitIiort for patent was filecl". It is this cla.te tha.t is enl-erecl in the ltcgistcr. I lc poiirtecl out that under Rule B0 to lceep a pateut itr force, tlte rcttcwal l-ees specifie.d in the First Scheclule shall be payafle at the e;tpilatiort o['tlrc sec.ond )'ear fi'om the date of the patent anci the period lbr llryrlreltl o1' renewal fees ma1, be extended up to six rnotttjis. So the clalc ol'prttcrrt becones critical for tire payrneut of renewal l-ees, Whei-e o,t u,,,r,tcatit has not paid renewal fbes, it l:reans that he is awa,te that lre ltlts rrot beelr gr.anted a patent.

¶351VI1-. Majurnclar poiilfccl out thirt lJilcler' Rule J22, the Corltrrrller catr corect clerical errors. Likeu,ise, under Section lzl-6 tlre Co,rtr,,tlet' c:itlt : crall lbr inforn.ation regal-ding tlre conlrllercial working o1' thc paterrt lvittrin two months fi'onl the cla.te of srich irotice. lrlotu,itlrslanclirrg tl.ris, W.P.(C] No.s. 3576, 3577,54.22, 5423 of 2OO7 Bi 70399, 40400 & 70450 oJ 2009 & '1020 of 7-A1.0 poge 20 c{.1.o -\ o ,/ /. Lrnder Section 146(2) evel-y patetrt holcler Jra.s to firrni:;h sttttctrtetrts. irt Lx n'to,',tlrs rts llli.l.1i [tc. prescribe{ as to the rjxtent to which the paterrtecl itiventitrrr ltils trccrr worked ou a. colllmercial scale iu India. If no such repotls at'c I'ilccl, tlrcu it is plain that no p'atent has been grurrt",l. The working ol'the pa.lcrrt . a arises onl1r 1y1"re.it is grairted. Mr. Majumclar fointect out thnt ulttlcr f<tttr 130 an applica.tion for review of the Controller's orclct' lr;ts lo lrc ma.cle within orie month fi'om the date of couurunicatiotr ol'tltc tlec.isiotr to the ajlplicant a J

¶36It is subtnitted by Ml. MuJrprdar that iri the instant cer:ie therc \,vui no presumption of .gra.nt of pa.tent only on the basis oI tlre letter rltrlecl 28(l' March 20.08 as it was only an infomral iutiruatioq to the Petitioner r,r,lric.lr rryas in fact not required to be macle in law. It is cxr[l, as a. lorrg s(anclirrg t 'practice that the Controller has been issuing suclr'conllrlur)icalirlns btrt there is no guarantee that patent would be granted only on aocounl ol' such communication. Secbndly, rvithor-rt the cornpletion o['Llre pLocctlulc envisaged nnder Section 25(I) and Section'11A, thei'e calr be no 61r'iurt ol: a patent. It"is submitted.that for the pru?oses of the Act "tlre clate trl-grant of the.patent is the dat'e on which the Responclelrt authoritie.s pirss ilre order of grant. It is only after srich an orcler is pa.ssecl, Lhal it patenl is treated as gtanted uo malter udren the cerl,ifica.te oi grant ir; isiiLrctl or' when the grant is'recorded ol notified." It is accorclingllr 51111'rritlerl tlraf as on the clate of tn" filing of pre-gra.nt.opposrtion, rro gra.ut ol'pirtcnt hrrrl talcen place as eiivisage4 by the Act. W.P-(C) Nos. 3576. 3577.5422,,5423 of 2007 & X-0399, 704A0 & 70450 of 2009 & 7o2o of 201.0 losu 21 of 40 81 , cX Lfo' I

¶37The writ petition is also resisted on tlte grotutd of'laches. lt is srlalocl that the Fetitiouet; chose to challenge the order-datect 30tl' lvlart;h 20(X.) only sn 72"t Iantary 2010. Relialce is pla.cecl on tlte jrrclgrrrclrt ol'the Snprenre CoLrrt in state of M.F. v. Narull.a.l "faist'va.l (lgil()) 4 ,gCC 5(;6- ' Wken can a patent be scid.to be grunted? :iB. Theboiirmon qriestion Lhat arises iu'all these petitions is wJrctr cart it be said that a pa.tent has been grairted? Sectjon 2 (l) ol'thc Ao[ ollcrrs With the',r.',crds "unless tlie context otherwise r:equires".'['ltis lras ltt lre ' rea-clwith section2 (1) 0n) which clefines a'pa.tent'ut ",., lralerrt (i:r'arr1, iurrention granted nnder this Act". The date of gtant ol'patclit is crilic;irl'.. . fcr cletermirring the tine within which a pre-graut ollposi{ir.rn has lr.r trc fiied in terms of Sectior25(1) of the Act. After the auuencfrrrcrrt io thc' . Act and iu. particular-to Section 25 (1) with effieot Ji-onr l".larruart, 2(X)5, a significant change has been brought in this r-egarcl. I)r'ior to its amenclinent, nncler Section 25(1) the pre-grant oppo-sition hacl to be tilccl urithin fonr monLhs fi"our the date of ach,ertiserrrertt of the; ncceptinrce trl-the cotnplete specifica.tion. fdis advertiseurerrt in'the oflic;iirl giizctte oi' 1te ac,c,ep{ance of cornplete spebification was under Seo{iorr 2l} ol'the Act, prior to its amenclment. A fi.rrther rnaxinturir period ol'olrc rlorrtlr couid be allowed b1'the Controller for makirig the pre-graut opptlsition Such prc-grant opposition coulcl be made only b1, a "perstllr jrrlcrestecl''. . Tire significairt c,hange bt'ouglrt about by the amenclLrr.errt to ,5cr;tiorr in.2005 is that lfie i:re-grant 'representation'.(or oltllositit;rr) irguirrst W.P.(C) t)tos' 3576, 35L7,5422, 5423 of.2007 8. 703gg,.70400 & 10450 of 2009 & 1.020 of 2011) page 27-af (0 i9 2s tl I' ) ,) : the graut oipa.telt can.be rnade by "any persou". The publicir{i0ri tlf'tlrc complete specification nornr lfut place uttder Section llA of the Act. Urrcler Rule 24 of the Pateni Rules .2003 the publicatiolt ltappetts tro(' earlier than 18 nolths fi-om the date of fiting of the applioatit.rtt ot' thc clate of priority of the applicatiol, rvhichever is earliet'.

¶40Thdre *. ,p..ific' time limits. for the steps to be takctr 1f1' tlre acceptance of the cornplete specification lbr .publioatiort [ry tlrc controller'- This is followecl by a teqriest urade b)' tlre applicarrt lor' examjna,tion i1 terms of Sectiol 1l'-B of the Act. l'liis is {irllorvccl b.r' [ltc examination.of the application uncler Sectiou 12 ttl' tlre Act u,lticlr ltits ttr .take place within tire sfecified tilrie liurjt as pr-escribed irr Rtrle 2'l-li ol' the Rules. Withorit going into the specific details of th'is titrtc ;rclitlcl, [or th.e purposes of the present petitions it is suffibient Lo rtote Lha.l where it i.s iirtencled that there shc,uld be a specific tiirre linrit within r,vhich a, step ltas Controller then such time liluit is'clearly iudicated in tlie'Act:rtrcl tlrc V Rules, /t '41. There is another provi.sion which is relevant in this context. LJrrrlcr' Rule 55(1-A), no patent shali be glarited before the expirl' ol'it periotl oi' sjx rnonths fi-orn the date of publication of the applicatiorr. undcr liccrioir 11A. As Lr result, at least for a period of 2 ysars afler filrrrlr tlfl tlrc application for graut of patent, no pa.tenL can be grei.ntecl. lt is durirtg tlris period that the steps for examtnation of the pa.teni iu tenls o['l]octitlrr lJ , VI/.P.(C] No.s. 351-6, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70399, 70400 & 10450'of 2009 & 1020 uf 201"(l . p o.r1e 2i of 40 \/-, and thereafter the consideration by the Contr-oller. of thc t'c;rttt'[ ol' tlre Examiner gnder Sectiol 14 fbllowecl b/ auteuchtreuts, if ltlly, lrc ir.ll undertaicen. It is during this tinre a.lso that the'1rre-gt'attt tl;lpo.siliorr is expected to be filed. ')

¶42The fact of tire acceptance of the complete specificatiotr, ar; irrdicirtccl by the applicant for grant of a patent, [raving been act:eptccl lirr' 'publicatiou is evident fi-orn the aclvertisement of such specificatiotr irr the Patents Journal in tenns of Section 11A of the'Act. 'l'lrcrelore, itrl)/ person who is seeking to object to the grant of the lraterrt is cr;rectc,-l to [<eep the traclc of publication of snch complete specilication. 'l'his C'our"t .tias been informed that publication also takes place on tlte rvettsitc" itr addition to being published in the Journal.

¶43There is n frrrther time restriction.. Under l(ule 2t1., tlte period lirr' which an application for patent "slrall rjot orcliuatily be ol)en (o lrutrlic Ltnder sub-sectioq (1) of Section tt-n slrall be 1tt rriolth-s fi'orn thc rlate of filing of the application or the clate of the prior-ity of t'lre a;rplicrrtiorr, whichever'is earlier." In effect, therefore, it will. not be possible lirr a person seeking to object to the grant of a patent to ur.ake 'replcsblrtatirtrr" earlier than a period of 1B mont'hs a.fter the date of the lilirrg ol'suclr application. In any event since in terms of Rtrle 55(1-A) no patcttl catt Lrc granted before the expiry of.a period of six rnonths fi'our the clatc.ol' publication and the Controllei is expectecl to pubJish thc application witliin.olle rnonth frorn the date of expirl, of the saicl peliocl, tlrcl'c i.s a( W.P.(C) Nos. i576, 3577,5422, .5423' of 2007 &.703gg, 104.00 & 1.0450 of 2009 Bt L020 of 20L0 ' page 24 crf 40 o ! 5-least a .period representation. of six urontirs thereafter for the oppot;et' ltt lilc thc 4zl. Given the above scheme, the amendrnent in 2005 to Sectiorr 25 oi'tlre Act r.vas apparently rnacle'"vith a view to extenclir.rg the tiuLe pclio<l u,ithirr 'wliich an cpilosition to the grant of patent hacl to be rnacle. . lJrrder the pre-alnerlded Section25, the persrons interestecl in ofposing tlre gratrrt ol' palerrt hacl to. necessarily lile strch opposition lvithin lbur rrrontlrs, ir period extendable only by' one month, rvheleas . turder the arlrerr,lecl Section 25 that 1:eriod is clearly extended a.t least up 1o six rrrouth..i.

4.-5. Giveu the practical aspect of the matter-no patent is u.sual11, grarrtccl imrnediately on the expirl/ of,six rnonths fi-orn the dlate of puLrlicatioriol. th.e application. It is usually 3 unrch longer period-Thc anrcrrrlrrrerrt rrr Section '25 clearly, thereft-rre, cularges the tinre l'or {ilirrg o[ a prc-glarrt rl opposrhon.

¶46The thrust.of the Act is. that the mere grant of pateut cloes rro[ ensule its valiclit.l'. This is plarn {l-orn Sectioir,l3(4) of tJre /-\ct llverr (lre grurrI of apateiit rloes not ensLtre tira.t there will be no fiu'ther challcrrlr,c. [-lnrler' Section ZS 1Z1of the Ac,t, against the grant of a pafent ancl tlre rejectiorr of a pre-grant opposition, a post-grapt opposition can be lilccl b-1, .n111, person . intcrested before the' Intellectrlal Propei11, Appclla{o lJotu'cl

(IPAB).A,-n applicatiou for re..,ccation can tre filect before tlre ll)AlJ Lr1, any Person interestecl Lurtler Section 64. cf the Act. lf the l.rirtcrr( ir,tltl,-'r lAr.P'(c) f{os.351q 3577,.1422, 5423 of 2007 &t lo3gg,70400 & 704s0 of 2co9 & 702o.of 2oJ0 . pdge ZS of 40 qLt files a suit for infi-ingement the Defendant iu such a suit call b"y connter claim challenge the valiclity of grant of pa,tent (liectiolr with Seption 6zl of the. Act). . rn,,r), ull n 107 r'eacl

¶47The scherne of the Patents Act, therefbre, is such Lhat {hcrc at'c serreral hudles to cross before the gralt of a 1l;tl.eltt call bc saitl lo.trc final. There ar-e two other provisions that reqr-rire to be tro{.icccl. Lirrilcr' Section 53, term of every patent "shall be20 years fi'ottr the claLc ol'i'ilirrg of the application for the patent". Under Sectjon 45 "et,erJ' Ptttcrrt slrrtll be dated as of the date on which the applicatioti for patett[ t,vttri tllccl" Sinc.e this clate cannot possibly be changcd, a paLent holcler llrir.)r s111[ u;) not being able to work the pateut chuing the tjnre whelt it t'citraitrs' challenged, or its grant is sta1,efl or rryhetr tlte paterrt hrlldcr is . rtot co1fide1t to exploit it coinrnercially till all ttre challengcs to ils validi()' are ovorcoilte. Since there is already.a loss of tirne lol the ltatert liolcler' in the above processes, the time period euvisagecl b)' section 25( l') ol'titc Act for filing of a pre-grant opposition cannot possilrly [rc libelally construed, ' uotrvithstanding tJral' there is no speci[io lirrle pcriotl m.entioned therein.'The outer liurit is the date on u,hiclt thc ltatelrt is grantecl.

¶48A careful look at Sectjon 43 of the Act shows that irr tlre llrs[ placo itn' application for.pateni has tc be:forulcl ""to be in orclel lol gr-arit"'.'l'lri.s lncludes the periocl druing which cornplete specifica.tion is acceptecl lirr' pLrblication.'in tenns 'of Section I IA,followed by .the exanrittitliolt ol' tlre.. W.P.(Q) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 10ggg, 70400 & L04s0 oI 2009 Bt 1020 of 20L0 \ Poge 26 of 40 -U Yt' ) pa.tent which takes place within the tirne-.&ame set the Rules. A refusal at that stage will be govetned Act. If the patent is not refusecl at that sta.ge and nb has been filed, the patent proceeds for registration. otrt irr ltule Ttl-l:\ <tl'' b), Section | 5 crl-the pr-e-gt'irlr I olrptts; i Iitll I

4.9. Where alty pre-grant oppositioir .is filed in the lilrrrr tl[' c represehtation under Section 25(1.) of .the Act, thetr it has to be cxzt.ttrirtetJ followilg the proceclure outlined in Rule 55 ( l) '[he i'eprescrttatit'ttt sirolld ilclgcle a sta.tenrent of evidence and 4 reqtrest lbr ltcar'ing. [Jrrtlcr' Rule 55 (2), the Controller is to consider such lepre,seutatiolr "only rvltett lerr tllec[". A rrotice is given to.the'applicant "for'grant of pa.tent" where tlre Corrtrollcr liil'rrrs lrrr opinign,,upon considering the pre-grant oppositiou, ihat tlre pttlelrt shorrltl be reftised or arnended. Thrs happens under Rule 55 (3). '['ltc a;lplicirrrl for grant of patenl then respor:cls to the uotice by filirig hjs statcrrterrt ol' evidence uncler'Rule 55(4) withilr three rronths lt'out the date ol' (lrc .. notice' Under Rule 55 (5), the Contr.oller rnal/, ol1 corlsitlcrir{iorr cll'{hc staternent and evidence filed by the applicant, eitlter relirse to gralrt a patent or require tlie complete specification to be antenclecl belirre the patent is.granted

¶50Tlien we have Rule 55 (6) rvirich rs relied upoir extensirrelv b1, ths learned connsei for the parties ancl which reacls a.s rurcler. "55(6.) After corisidering the represetttation ttttd submission macle cluling the liearing iI'so reques{ecl, the Controller shail proceed further simLrJ[a.neousllr w.P.(c) No.s. 3576, 3577,5422, 5423 of'2007 & 70399, 70400 & 70450 of 2OO9 &.7020 ti'2010 '-t I6i either rejecting the patent or acceptiug the grant of patent within ong rnonth proceedinlgs." 5I. It is plain, therefore, that onc-e the fi-e-grant oppo.sjtion is cleciclccl, tlre Controiler sirnultanebusly proceeds to either reject such rellt'csctt|"atiort m.d Srrtt the pateut or acbept the r-epresentation-ernd refusd the ltaletrt. The langlrage of Rule 55 (6) leaves r1o manner o1' cloubt that tltcse [t,r,o . a.ctions i.e. the consideration of the representation and the {irrul clcr:isiurr on the application for grant of phtent take place sinrultaneousll,. .52. kis possible that there "." rnor. than one representatiorrs [)y rva1, ivl' pte-grant opposition. Iclealllr, the Controller wifl bunch thenr togellrer', hear thettt seq.uentially and express a. final oJrinion on. ca.olr o1'tlrcrrr i-.r.s lir' as practicable, on tlr" salne clate.. It is lilce a court hearring a'batch ol' petitions seeking siinilar relief. It is possible that evelr aller tlrc hcarirrg on one binch of pre-grant oppositions has conclucled ancJ olcler' lras bcclr reseled tltereon, anothei pre-gant oppositiolt or a sgt ol'opl.rositiotr.r is . fiieci plror to tlie prolrourtcernent by the Contrbller of the t.t""i.r;u,, orr lhq f.irst set of pre-grant opprssitions. Tben the scheme of the A<.:t.r-ctluires tlrc Coirtroller to deal radth such subsecFrentll, filecl pre-graut oJtpositiolrs irs well. I{owever, ollce a final decision is pronoun'cecl on the llrc-grirrrt a oppositiotls, the Contr-oller shor.rlcl, consistelrt with tlie re<lu,irenrcrrI ol-ri.ule 55 (6) simultaneously proilouilce tlre decision oli the appli,:ation Jirr' w-P.(cl Nos-i51-6, 9577,5422, 5423. of 2007 A nEgg 70400.& toaio uf zaos gt 1020 ":,,^:n Page ZB o'f tlO representation aud grattting tirc the represeutatiou antl reltlsillg on that application, ordinaril.y from the cornpletiotr' of atrovc ) ) \?- grant of patent. The Controller shoulcl clearly state, sitntrltalrcctr.sly, tlrtrt the applicatiol is found in orcler and that the patent is beirrg g,rattlccl.

¶53Reverlurg to Sebtion 4.3 (1), flte'language usecl'is tha.t "'a ltatr:nl. rsJtall be gtanted as expeditiously.as possible." TJrerefore.the pelterrt htrs lt.r [rc grauted once it is fourd that either the application ltas uot bcon rclirsecl irr . terrns of, Secticn 25(l) read with Rule 55 (6) or it has uot bectt lourrcl i'rr contravention of auy pr'ovision of the Act. In otlrer urotcls, irt tlris s;{.trge the'Controller is not expected to delay the pronorncelnent ol'llre lirral 'decision. The thmst of Section 43 (l) and Rirle 55 (6) is lhirt of' expeditious decision rnaking by tlie Qontroller. Sectiotr 43 ( l) rrrclicatcs that the "patent'shall be gr-anted.... with the seal oljthe puterrt ol'licc arrcl the date on which the patent is granted shall be enterecl in thc Ilogister'". S4ren read coutinuonsly, the laugLrage of Section 43 (l) cloes appcar' {o irrdieate that it is the decision takeri by the Contloller on lllc r,r,lrich is tho determining event for ascertaining "the date of g,lu,,i o1'paterrt.' 'l'lrc. sealing of the patent aud' the entering of the perleut irr tlrc l(cg,istcr obviousll, follows the. act of the Controller passilrg alr orcler' to tlic el'(bct that the patent has lteen granted. In other words, ilie seaiing ol'tlre patcrrl and the entering of the patent in the Re.gister are, given the langrrage o[- Section 43 (l) of the Act, intended to be ministerial acts eviclencing tlre: grant of patent, wlr'icli is ai a stage antprior to those nrinisterial ac{.s.

¶54Sectiot aj Q) {hat the parent has talks of the publishing by the Contlollcr ol"'tlrc (iit;t beeu granted". T'he larr.guage of Sectiou ,1rr 12) i.s ltlirirr. ltv.P.(C) Nos. 3976, 3577t5422, 5423 of 2007 & 773gg, iO40O & 70450 ol 2009 Bt 7020 ctf .ZtitO poge 29 ol 4O \s' ) 'fhe act of prrblicatiol clearly follorvs the grant of pa.tetrl. Pct' lirr"ec tlrr-r grarit of patent is antgrior to the publication ancl J:asi to necessiirily be lt l point earlier to the pgblication. It is, therefore, 1ct'pgssiblc lo a8,rce -grant opposers in tlrc preselt batch of qases that the pateut cauuot be saicl to lta.r'e bcort grarrlctl lill this fa.ct is publiihed in the officia.l gazette.. Civerr thrtl tlre inteqrretafion oi the provision has to be contexttta.l, this (ior.rr'l holtls lhat the clate of grant of'patent is the date on which th'e Corltroller passer; trll orcler to that effect o1 the file. This Court uow proceecls lo ciexrl r'r'itJr the alrprehended practicai problerns that the,office of the Controllct'rtta)r Ihr:c otl accormt of the interpretation piaced by 1,115 Court brr Se<;tiorr il.l oi'tlre: Act. Frevi.or,r.s awtoultcrinrcnt qf tlre date of plottoturcenten.t o.t'-orr{crs

¶55It was srrbmitted that an orclel does not.becorne ell'ectivc till srrclr tinle it is cornmnnicated or rnade known, because it then girrcs vttltrirble .L rights to both the Jrolder of the pa.lent as well as all)/'llcl'sotl irttcrc:stetl ilr opposing the gl ant of patent. Whilg it is couect tbat tlre kuor,vleclgc ol' atr order grariling a patent is irnportant fi'om the point o1'vierv oJ' btttlr tlre .applicant for grant of patent anrl the opposer, it is unlil<eiy tlrat tlre applicant is uot present, either in person ot tlu'ough zt tepresetrtalive, oll the clate on which an order is'passred by the Controller ot' Lhe Assistarrt Controller granting the patent. In order to obrriate any clillicLrlty orr lhis score) this Courl would.like to impress upon l,he'Controllcr arrcl tlrc Assistant.Controlleis to list cases for prouoiutceureut of ol-clel's itttd rrtitltc W:P.(C) Nos. 357Q 3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70sgg, 70400 B1 10450 of 2O0g &t 7o2o o,f 20.t0 page !10 <tf 4(l h 4, (l that'fact known by pnblishing a 'canse list' of strch oasos ttlttlet' llte headilg "for pronouncelnelrt of olders" tlte pi'evious er4eltittg lroth clrl {hc websi,te as well the notice Boar-d of the Of'fice of the Controllcr,.itrst irs it happens in tlie Couits. Therefore both the applicant lor gt'a.ttt rtl'pittetrt tts well as the pre-gtaut Opposer woulcl be arvate of the. clatc ott r,vlriclr the orders are to be pronotutcecl. Since it will be at least thc ;it'cviott.s e\/ellulg on which the list is av?ilable on the rvebs.ite anil alstl plitcctl ott t the notice board of the Office of tJre Controller, tbet-e u,ill tre :;rrf'{-it:icrrl notl'.ce to such parties. I Dea lin g tuit h. Iteview Fetitions.

¶56If arl approach similar to that followed by coufls in hearirrg casc.s urrtl ppssing orclers thereon is acloptecl, uruch of the prbbJenrs l'accd bl, the Contrpller can be resolved. For instance, once a iinal orcler is 1;r'orrotrnccrt on a petition by the Court, then no ftrrther applica.tiorrs r.r,l.rcthel' Iilr' . intervention, impleadrnent, opposition or.any other reiieJ. is eutertaincrl jrt rry such conrt. The only exception is the filing of a rerrieiv altltlicirliorr tr1, y apuiry to the cose, Likevrise, once afina.l order glanting paterrl is: passccl by the Coirtroller"or1 the file, therb is no questiorr o(' [hcr-ea(icl I entertaiuing a pre-gr-ant opppsition as it is barreci uuder Sco(iorr'25 (l) witli no cJiscretion given to. the Controller. If a ,.,,,j.r,, petiLitln is filr:rl ttircier Sectiori 77 (I) (f) read with Rr.rle 130, it will Lre by thosc r,vlro arc ltarties to the order of the Controller or the Assjstant Cclntrttllci tlrc i'eview.of wliic'h is sought.If srrch revier.v petition is enter'l"aii;cc[, irncl thc orcler is t'ecal.tccl fteu as it happerm r,vith judicial oi'clers bJ, t:our'ts, lire W,P.(C) Nos. 3576, 35L7,5422, 542J of 2007 & 70999, 10400 & 70450 of ZQ09 & 1020 of 20.t0 . page 3.7 of 40 ,P1 ) clock is put b.ugk to the stage where the original orcler \4/as. pasriccl a.ncl all Iegat consequences wouJ.d flow. This by no ltleatls alters the lirct tlral ilrc clate of the grant of patent is the clate on which tJre Controllcr ot' Assistarrl Controller passes an order on lile grantiug the paterrt.' Iilbreting of the ffutal order grunting putent

¶57Tirere is oue other aspect which requires to be advertccl Lo. rvhiclr is the wording of the order graniing patent. The Conlloller shotrJcl ;)tts'-s Iltc ryarrte(1" rltlv ittte," ,,lt 'fiual order' sayirig that "the paient is hereby gt'a.tl.ted" t;ltlv itl' arnendmeflts have bebn carried out to the satisfa.ctiou ol'thc Corrlrollcl' by-the applicant. The Controller wiii, therefbre, not clispctse. ol' (lie applicatiotl ot pass a final orcier till sLrch. tiure tlre Aplllic,arrt, lras rroI canied or.rt the.amendrnents to the satisfaction ol'the Corttrollcr'. lt rvill have to be a time-borurd order for that purpose. A I'aih"rre to cat'l'-y orrl tlrc anrendrnent to the specification a"s.directed bl, the ConfoJlcr or Assistarrt Controller within the time granted nright resrr'lt iu lejectiolt ol'thc palcrrt u,hich contingerrcy is covered nnder S. 15 of the Act.. Plncing th.e digitally signed order"s,ort'tlrc net 5B."hr order to minimise any ulltecessary time-ga1r betrveerr llre silruirrg \ by the ContrOller or Assistant Controller of tlie final orclct' granlirrg. pa.tent an$ the 'publishing' of snch order, it is clilectecl that ever1, Iinal orcler grAutrng the pa.tent passed by the Contr-oller or tlre Assi,stitnt ,. Controller, as the case may be, should be cligitally sigrretl [r1,'11,.. ' Controller or the Assistarrt Coniroller ancl pla.cecl or.l tlie rryelrsile oltllrc w'P.(c) Nos. s516, 9577,5422' 5423 of 2007 & 103gg, L0400 & 10450 o12009 & 1"0?-0 af 201.0 ' puge !t2 of 4A tl t Control'ler on'the very salne day without. aulr ttlltteces3trt'y qlsl;1;r' '['hg procedure.il this regdrcl be streanriined for being foJlorryecl trnilbl'ruly b1' all the officers and necessary instructions/practice clirections shorrltl bc issued by tlre ControLler. It ig ltts of 1t o s t-gr ant oqtp o s er s' p r o tected

¶59Tlie rights of such of those.post-grant opposers who rll'e l)ers()lls -l I 'inter:ested' are sufficiently protected under Section 25(2). ,5irrce thc , p"riod of lirnitation for filing a post-grant oppositjon is otte lttritttlt '"li't)rtt ,:?t,f . the date of pulilication of grant of a patent", the legislature ltas., tltcrelbrc, ' alreacly taken care of the iirterests of the po.st-grant op;rosels irlrrl tttetclc the periocl of limitation run only fi'om the clate of publicaiion ol the grlrrt of patent which is expectecl to take pla.ce in tertns of Sectior t zl?, (2) ol'the Act.

¶60It rnust.be understood tha.t prior to the amenclrnent irr Secliorr 25 irr the year 2005; even a pre-$ant opposition cou'lct be lilecl orrly lry irn.1, person "interested'.'It is only after the anrendttreirt jlr 2005 lltat a.rt-1r person cau now file the pre-grant opposition. The Act, therelitle, utal<es a distinction between ein, opposer at the stage of pre-gr-iutt opllusiliorr, . who could be 'any' person, and the opposer aI the.irost-gra.nI stagc, ivlto coulcl only be a 'person interested' Th9 legislative iirtelt is tlrirt thc riglrt to file a post-gr-ant opposition uncler Section 25 (2) is restrictecl'tir ariy person interested. The fa.ct tha.t the restriction o1'the tjtue Lo lilo a pr.c- . grant whrch results fi-om the interpileta.tion girren by this cuut't nritv ' vlt.p.(c) Nos. i576, ss77,s422, s42s oj 2007 a rcSgg, 70400 & 704s0 of 2009 & 7o?-o a! 201t) t poge 33 of 40 o., d) tF, irnpact the two classes of ple-grant opposers differently is coltsjstcttt r'r'i{lr the'above distinction. ':'

¶61While restricting the tilne periocl for filing 4 pr"-gr',nt opltosiLiort tt-r ttie tirne rvheir such pateut is granted ma1, inconvetrience '"11t1v 1;et'stttl"' vr,lio wishes'to file a pre-gr-ant oppositiou, it is certairtly ltot goitrg ttr inbonrrenience a "person interested". Even if such 'intct'estccl" pel'st.rt . .rnisses the bus at the pre-grant stage, the right.ol'suclt Jlersotl to ollpo:lc .a.t the post-grant stage is presen,ed uncler Sectiori 25 (2) o['lhe Ar;t. Ther-efore, tlr.e interpretatioir pla.ced by this-Court certttirrly'r:alttto( prejuclice a pdrson iritereste.d in opposing the grarlt o['pal.ent. As reg;rrrls any persori, other than a persou interested, the legislatirre intcnt apJ)cius to restrict the scope of such persolr confinecl to the stage rrl'llrc-g,r'altt. lt woulcl be necessaly, therefcre, for such person (rvho n1.fl.1r rrol bc arr 'interestecl' person) to be vigilant ancl to wa.tch 'crut [ill' the clatc ol' adveftisement of the complete specification and rurdcrsta.ncl that thc [irnitation for filing a pre-grant oppositiou begins to run lr-orrr tlrat r.latc orrwards. Need to cf.rscoilrage./ilirtg of seri,al op1tositiorts

¶62Accepting the subrnissioirs of lrre-Eant opposers in the preserrt [ra(clr of cases that till such time the plant of patent is not en(eroc! ilr thc Register, and notwithstand.ing that an. orcler lfas ah-eacly beerr pas.secl orr file !y the Contr-oller gra.nting a'1ia.terrt, Lhey can corriinue tc (ilc tlro prc-grallt representations'in lernts of Secltion 25 (1) rrriglrt rcsult iu thc t /.P-(c) Nos-3576, 3577,5422, 54zi of 2007 & L0399, 10400 & to4.5o of 2009 & 1020 af z1lt) . puge 3t4. ttf 40 . f ? -\ J,t V phsllstueno" :f "seri'al oppositious', as h4s happened ilr tho otrsic (){: tllc alTplications filed opposing the patents applied fol try .l IVlitrrr & Cornpa.ly. Withur a. da1, after the Controller'ieicctecl tlrc pt'c-gtittt{ ,', opposition filed by SDL, Dr.'Gupte filecl a pr-e-gl-ant opposi(iorr. lioott therealter Dr. Rindanr. filed his ;ir-e-grant oppositiorr. llr otller rvortls" il' ' this Court were to hold that the clate of the grant ol' patent is orr11, llrc tlntc o1 rvhich the factun of such gtant is efltered in the Register'. tlrerr. tltot"c ' . lvouldbe no end.to filing of pre-grant oppositions as long as oll itcctlttttl of some delay on the aclministratirre side tlie fa.ctuur of'grattt ol'llaicrtt is .;' ')+ r ,, , ' not entered in thc R'bgister. Give:r the scheme of the Act, a.ltcl {he tturttbcr . of hurdles an applicant.for grant of a paten! has to ovet'collrc, even il'tlre application is fouucl to be "il orcler fbr grant', it is not pt-tssiblc to ac:cc;tt ' the intelpretation put florth by the pre-grant opposers. 63 Then we have one lnore situation as in the case.of Tibol,cc 'l'lrc nrorc communipation by the Controller to the applicant fbl gra.nt o1'patetrt [irirt th3 application has been'{oqnd in order subject. of qourse io (lre rlecir;iun on pre-grant olrposition, if any filed, canuot be constrirecl as (hc r;ll'icial decision of the Controller granting the pa.tent. There has lo lre iur orclct' on file passed by the Controiler holtling that the patent ltrs lreett lorurcl itr .orcler alcl that patent is granted. Until ancl unless such'aut orclct' is ;rassed or file, it cannot be said that the perfent has been'granted. 6-4. In adopting tlie above iuterpretation of Section 43 a.ncl othcr lcliitcrl p:rovisions of the Act tliis Couri has..l(ept irr view the ltllltiwirrg W.P.(C) Nos. i576, 35'17,5422, 5423 of 2007 & :10399, 704.00 & 7O45O.of 2009 & 7020 of 2010 pase 15 of 4b t1 , observa.tions of the Supreme court in Entet"tttirtnrcnt Nr:futrtt'h (fnrlia) X,td.. v, Suqter Cassette Inr[ustries [,td. (2005) 13 S]CC J0, in paras l-]7 and 139, which though rnade in the context of the Copyl'jgl1t /\ut rrttrlr ra'ell apply to the plesent cases as u'ell: ' "I37. Furlher-r'nore, the cotttt whjle i[terpretlng ir statute will put itself in the arttrcha.jr oI thc reasonable legislature, all statutes ntttst be presrrnted . to be reasonable. It is ilow trite law tha.t litcral ' interpretation sJroulcl be avoiclecl ivhen it leacls ltr absurdity... ... I3g. In this case, ltowever, the ttreatring of thc statute is neither-clear uor seusible. .tt is a statute ' where a putposive couslrtiction is wau-antecl. It is ir case wherle sub-section (2) should be l<ept confiltetl to clause (a) for that prulrose. The statute lias to bc rea.d down. It is not a ca.se of imptoper itr.terpolatiorr so as to talce a\ray a priurary pupose o{' thc: legislatrve intent. IL is expedient 1o give clfect to lhe intent of the statute. This itself says tJrat ct'eascs oatl be ironed out. While undertal<ing the saicl exerciso, the Court's endeavourr,vould.be to give a. nreaning tcr the proviSions ancl not render it otiose... . '''

¶65This cont{, for the a.forementioned puqloses.of Sectiori 43 (1) oI'the Act, the.pa.tent is 'gr-arrte(l' orr thc clalc on which the Contrbller passes a tinal order to that efl'ect on the llle. Corlclusiorts: First set of pe:titions

¶66The facts in the first set of petitions harre alreacll,beerr clisc.us.sccl the first set of petitions, the orcler dated 23'd August 2006 pas;sccl [r1, W.P.(C) Nos.3576,3577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 70399, L0400 & U),LSO o7 ZOO? & 7020 of 2010 page !16 of 40 I l'easons, .holcis that lor thc: Itt the , c o. ff Collroller, while clismissing the p.re-graut oppositiolr Llra.[ "l.ltct'ctry orclct' to grant patent (Patent ,No. 194638) o]. balch Allplit:ttLititr )t', 593/DeI/2000'; nrust be. talien to be the clate on u,Jrich [ltc Pir[clr[ urrts grantecL. Although, as pointed out by leamcd cotrrtsel fur'Llrc l)etitiottct's, rhe saicl orcler rel]-rires ltr" +ppli'cant (.I,MiLra & Co ) tct nrrrcrltl llrc specification to inclqde a cross reference, it cloes noI trterlerially i1l'[-ecL tlrc fb.cturn of the'gralt.of patent. The fact that it was etltel'etl irt [lte ltegistcr' on 22"'t Septelrbet 2006 u'oulcl not make any ditTeretlce to Uris ;ro.si[iort. 'Further the staternent by J.Mitra,ft Co. in the plaint in C.5i. (t)lj)Nlo-'/02t) o'f 2006.that the paierit was grantecl orl 22'"i Septetnber 2006 vvttrtlcl al.'rtr 11ot rnake a clifference to the position iu Jarry. Tire tla{.c oJ-Llrc gl'arr{ oI'lhc patent i1 question to J.Mit ra & Co.should be talteri as 23''r /\tr5ir-rs{. 20(Xr-

¶67Colsequently, alty pre-grant opposition fliecl aftcr 23rcl Ar-tgr,rr;l ,100(r was clearll' barred under Sectiou 25 (1) of the Act. 'l'lrt:relirrc thr: irnpugnbcl orclers of the Controller rejecting the pre-Lgl'al1t. op;'rosi{iotrs I filed by the petition"r, ur" Valicl and clo not call for inter l.bfcrlc('.

¶68Irlotrvithstancling the above conclusiotr,.this Cor-ri'L a.lso lrolcls lha[ (llc: fili1g of pre-grant opirosition by Dr. Gqtte aucl Dt'. Rirrclani rrr-tfrsc<.ltrctti. to Z3'.t August 2006 was, apa.rt fiom being uot tlaiuLainalrlc itt ltLtv, alstr an abuse oi th".process of l1w This Court is noL cottvirrccql ol'Lhc bonaficles of either of the Petition.ers..There has lrot bce[ att)' cl-l'ct;t'ivt: cleniai of the fact that both Petitioners \ryere assooiar[ecl u,ith Sl)1, irI liorrrc capacity or-The oth'er. It is impossible to cotnpreheucl tlrat cjtlrct' ol'{lrc:sc: . 'irl w.Plc) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422-, 5423 of 2007 Bi 70ggg, 70400 & 10450 of 2009 & L0.7-0 uf 20J'0 page 37 a.[ 40 5(, Petitioners was unavvare of the lact that the Iiling tl['tht: ;ll"c-g,t'atrl oplrosition by SDL or of the fact that it Jras beett tal<ctr Lll) [irr' consid.erationby the Controller of Patents or of the fact tha.l tl)c ot'clct'otl such pre-grant opposition were 1:errcling. I 'l , .69. Evel according to thqse Fetitioners, Lhe cotlnrltttill'ol'llttlsc \ interestecl inthe cleveloprnent of l.he test kits is a. strraJl ole iutd orit-t'y s{cl.r taken by each corniretitor rryoulcl be lcnown to tire other. '['lr is i{.sic[l' trt:[ics the fact that either Dr. Gr-rpte or'.Dr. Rinclani \^/as.Lrna\r,iue rtl'the pre- '\)-/' grant oppositions already filed by SDL in relatiot't'l.ti llrc pu[.crtt ' appiications of .I. Mitra & Company. Gjven tire lorrg hisLorl, ol'liligaliorr betwee:r. the parties, it ci'eates fruther clor-rbts on the bona.llcles ol-llrc.sc trvo Petitioners. 70' For all of the above reasons' this court fincls.absolutcl)i rro rr'*tlit i'.t Llre fonr Writ Petition (C) Nos.3 516,3517, 5422 arxl 5423 ol-2007 irr [lrc first set ancl they are disrnissecl with costs of Rr.ZO,000/- carcfr rvl'ric[r r,r,ill be paid by eaoh of the Petitionels to J. I\4itra & Co. rryitlrin a.,1tcrior.l o[' ''. Ibur rveeks. i .,: Conclusiorzs: Second set of pbti,f,ion.s

71.. Inthe second set of petitions by Zephyr, the patent it, l6vtrttt'of''l,rrliI A4ahajan was granteil ancl sealecl on 16tr'Oclober 200u rvltct'cas;. Lltc prc-grant opirosition was filed in. one case on.'28tl'Novdmber 200tt ancl itt Lr,i,tr olher cases on 12'h Decembe r 2008. Lhere cau be tro ttttti.tttcr ol'cloLrbr. : that the filiirg of such pre-grant opposition was subsecluerrL l.o Llrc slant ol-W.p.(C) Nos. 3576, 3577,5422, 542-j of 2007 8r 70igg, 70400 & 10450 oI 2009 & 1"020 ttf 2070 poge 3B of 40 s7, patent ancl was barred rncler Sectiou 25(I) ol'the Ac{. 'l"'hcl'c is absolutely, therefole, no en"or in the orclers passecl by 1lr,: t'ottttrrllcr ( rej ecting the pie-grant olrlrositions.

¶72Thethree Wr,rt Petition (C) Nos. 10399, disrnissed with costs of Rs. 20,0001-ea.ch 10400 aucl 1045() o{'2005) irre which ivill bc Lririd h)r the Petitioner Zephyr to Respondent No.1 Lalit fi-orn today. Mahajan r,vith irr lirtrt' t,vcclt.s Concl.wsions itt F4trit Fetitien (C) No. 1020 of 20.10

73.Inview of rryhat has been held aborre. the oomnruuic.zltiort cfirLecl 28tr' t-' March 2008 written by the Controller to the Petitioner cnnnot.trc lreltl to be the date of grplt of the patent. It was merely a couunuuicrrtiorr stalirrg that the application has been fourd in order for grant. It is ntt( ;t.u rlt'rlcr' to grant. patent. Therefbre, when the pre-grant oppo$rtiorr was (ilccl by rt-Cipla Ltd on 26"'June 2008 there wa.s no grant o['patent by. tlra{. chrtl: irrrrl, therefore, such application was rraintaiu.able in tenns of llectiorr 25( l) ol' tJre Act. Although there is an observation b1r ths Coutroller tlrat irllc:r'J0tl'' 'May 2008 there pw&s uo legal irrq:edimeni iu tJre Controller pirssilrg arr order for gtant of patent beca.use on that'date,tlrere wa.s no l)r'e-grant opposition, the.fact remains that ou'file no sucl.r. orclel' was llirssccl. lt -canlrot, therefore, be said that the filing of .the pre-granf oll;.losi[ion orr 26tr'Jure 200|by Cipla was time barred. ; ' . '74.There is.yg1 another grouncl for not etrtertaiiring t,he lrlca of'tlre W.P.(C) Nos. 3576, 9577,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 71ggg, L0400 & 70450 of 2O0g & 1"o2-o of 2070 Puge 39 o! 4(l .75. Fot' the alorementioned' reasons' the cosls o[11s.20,000/- rryhich will be paicl Clipla Ltcl. rvithin four weeks' writ petition is clismissec'! wi.th by the Petitioner. to Resi:otrclenl: ) .Directirtrts to'the Controller of Fntents ,T6.l.heControlierofPaterrtsrvili,withinaperiocloftwoweeics|rottr ilections/instructious to'all o.J-tlccrs aucl ooucernecl a*thorities in terms of this j,ct$ment a'cl partic'larry i' Lerrns .[.what hars bee^ held by this Golrrt in pagas 55 to 58 ther]eol'' Such . prnctice clir-ections/ instructio's rvill also be pracecl si'rr-rlLa'eo*sly o' the wobsitc o.f lhe controller of Patents' 'they will be prospeclive in the .seuse they rvill. not result in the reopening of orclers granling llaLen[ Lhai a d:,) \ I have erltatinecl ttnalitY' : t TT.A.certifieclcopyoftlrisolclerwillbecleliverecltotlre Pa.Lents b)' a.special messenger forthrn'itlr' for coinpliance' -t\ .IUJt v l5; 2010 cln W.P.(C) Nos' 3516, 3517'5422' 5423 of 2007 & 70ggg' 70400 & 70450'of 2009 & IO20 of 2070 Page 40 of 4A ,93, pet.itio'er .l.he challe'ge is to an orclel reflising the granL of Patent rryhich is reli-rtable LO section 15 of the Act. This is appealable before tlie [P'z\I] rrrrcler Section l17A of the Act as has treen lielcl by this Cotn'L rn IICB ,Farchitst,sc v.' ciplo' Ltd" 1.67 (2010) DLT 459' ConLrollcr o.t' .l

ffi, IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI I - Reserved on: 29th April and 3'd June, 20t0 Decision on: 15'n JulY, 2010 W.P. (C) No. 10400 of 2009 ZEPIIYR BIOMEDICALS ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari, Advocate. VETSUS LALIT MAHAJAN & ANR. .... Respondents Through: Ms. Saya Chaudhary and Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate for R-l. VIr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC for R-2. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR