The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of specific pleadings and issues in patent infringement cases, the importance of rules to guide such proceedings, and the need for a clear procedure for revocation of a patent.

O.A. No.13/2017 in CS(COMM) No.29/2016 & O.A. No.14/2017 in CS(COMM) No.946/2016

1. The Chamber Appeal in both the suits has been preferred by Natco Pharma Ltd. (Natco) which is the sole defendant in CS(COMM) No.29/2016 and defendant No.2 in CS(COMM) No.946/2016 and are directed against the common order dated 30th January, 2017 of the Joint Registrar, allowing IA No.854/2017 and IA No.849/2017 of the plaintiffs, both under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in the two suits, for filing additional documents.

2. The senior counsel for Natco and the counsel for plaintiff F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (Hoffmann) in both suits, have been heard at length.

3. Hoffmann filed CS(OS) No.2465/2009 (new number CS(COMM) No.29/2016) to restrain Natco from infringing the drug patent of Hoffmann. Hoffmann thereafter filed CS(OS) No.81/2010 (new number CS(COMM) No.946/2016) to restrain Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. (Dr. Reddy) and Natco, again from infringing the same patent. The need for impleading Natco in the second suit arose because Natco was supplying Dr. Reddy the active pharmaceutical ingredient.

4. Natco as well as Dr. Reddy filed counterclaim in the suits, impugning the patent in favour of Hoffmann.

5. Separate issues were framed in the two suits and the counterclaims therein. Subsequently, the suits were consolidated and Hoffmann commenced leading its evidence. The first witness of Hoffmann has been examined and cross-examined by Dr. Reddy as well as Natco. Hoffmann thereafter filed affidavit by way of examination-in-chief of Dr. Alexander James Bridges, who the senior counsel for Natco fairly agrees, is a renowned expert in the field (and is not an employee or agent of Hoffmann). Hoffmann, along with the said affidavit, filed about 14 documents and which had not been filed by Hoffmann at any earlier stage.

6. IA No.10698/2016 and IA No.10685/2016 were filed by Natco in the respective suits averring that a portion of the deposition of Dr. Bridges in the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief was beyond the pleadings of Hoffmann and seeking striking off of the said paragraphs of the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. The said applications are still pending consideration and are listed for hearing on 15th May, 2017.

7. Since there was no stay of recording of evidence during the pendency of the aforesaid applications, the recording of evidence of Dr. Bridges commenced and his cross-examination by Natco stands concluded and he is now under cross-examination by Dr. Reddy.

8. At this stage, Hoffmann filed IA No.854/2017 and IA No.849/2017 supra seeking permission of the Court for taking on record 10 out of the aforesaid 14 documents filed for the first time along with the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief of Dr. Bridges and which applications have been allowed by the learned Joint Registrar vide the order impugned in these chamber appeals.

9. The principal contention of the senior counsel for Natco while impugning the order of the Joint Registrar is that the documents aforesaid are in support of the part of the deposition of Dr. Bridges which is beyond pleadings of Hoffmann and the Joint Registrar, by allowing the applications of Hoffmann to take the said documents on record, has committed impropriety of procedure. It is contended by the senior counsel for Natco that the learned Joint Registrar has thereby pre-empted the decision on the applications aforesaid of Natco and/or made them infructuous. It is also the contention of the senior counsel for Natco that the said fact was brought to the attention of the Joint Registrar, who during the hearing indeed enquired from the counsel for Hoffmann as to how the applications of Hoffmann could be decided first, but in the order dictated later in the afternoon, has allowed the applications of Hoffmann.

10. The counsel for the Hoffmann has not controverted the impropriety to the aforesaid extent. He however states that it was his submission before the Joint Re