9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions in various jurisdictions abroad including India which were not disclosed to the Controller of Patents, the learned Single Judge declined to revoke the patent in favour of ‘Roche’ granted by the Controller of Patents. With respect to the claim of injunction by ‘Roche’ the LD. Single Judge has held that the drug manufactured by 'Cipla’ does not violate the Patent No.196774 and since the claim for grant of patent in the second polymer ‘B’ stood rejected by the Controller of Patents, the Single Judge has held that the question of patent violation with respect to said polymer would not arise. The normal rule of law is that unless a power is specifically vested in a Court to restrain a party from prosecuting remedy before any Judicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cipla alleging infringement of the patent. Apart from damages, decree for permanent injunction was prayed for. 3. By way of a counter claim filed by Cipla it was prayed that patent granted in favour of Roche be revoked. On merits it was claimed by Cipla that it was not infringing the patent granted to Roche vide No.196774. 4. Patent in favour of Roche pertains to a Hydrochloride drug used in treatment of cancer, which we may call Polymer A . It so happened that Roche had applied for another patent pertaining to another Hydrochloride polymer, which we may call Polymer B stating that it was distinctively dis-similar to the earlier polymer (A) for which it had obtained a patent. Novelty and distinctiveness vis-a-vis the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Roche having filed various applications in various jurisdictions abroad including India which were not disclosed to the Controller of Patents, the learned Single Judge declined to revoke the patent in favour of Roche granted by the Controller of Patents. 9. With respect to the claim of injunction by Roche the learned Single Judge has held that the drug manufactured by Cipla does not violate the Patent No.196774 and since the claim for grant of patent in the second polymer B stood rejected by the Controller of Patents, the learned Single Judge has held that the question of patent violation with respect to said polymer would not arise. 10. Cross-appeals have been filed by the parties and have been admitted before a Division Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to be exercised by the Judge. But, a third party litigating on the same issue may plead non-disclosures having a span much more than the non-disclosure alleged by some other party. Meaning thereby, the span of non-disclosure may vary between the litigating parties. 18. We take on record the statement made by Mr.Anand Grover learned senior counsel who appeared for the third party applicant that before IPAB his client would be pressing the claim for revocation of the patent only on the ground of non-disclosure. 19. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that the unreasoned one line interim order dated April 01, 2013, requiring proceedings before IPAB between Roche and the applicant to be deferred beyond May 15, 2013 needs to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
