Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Natco Pharma Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opponent-Natco Pharma Ltd. (hereinafter `Opponent') in respect of pre-grant opposition proceedings against the patent application of Respondent No.4/Applicant- Novartis A.G. (hereinafter `Applicant'). The prayer in the petition is to set aside the order dated 16th September, 2021 passed by the Asst. Controller refusing the Opponent's application seeking cross-examination of the Applicant's witnesses. The reliefs sought are:
"a. A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside the Impugned Order dated 16.09.2021, and a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Authorities to pass appropriate directions to enable the Petitioner an opportunity to cross examine Dr. Michael Motto, Dr. Allan S. Myerson and Dr. Gauri Billa in an expeditious and time bound manner in pre grant opposition proceedings preferred by the Petitioner in Application No. 4412/DELNP/2007; and
b. A writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Authorities to pass appropriate directions
The need for a systematic manner in conducting pre-grant oppositions and the right to file affidavits of own experts in rebuttal.
Patents Act requires adherence to procedures in post-grant oppositions, emphasizing natural justice and timely resolutions to prevent delays in patent adjudication.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments made to patent claims at the instance of the Controller, pursuant to the directions of the Controller, do not violate the principle....
Procedural irregularities in patent opposition must respect principles of natural justice, and amendments to patent claims cannot broaden their scope.
Patent examination under Chapter IV (mandatory Section 14 hearing) and pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) (Chapter V) are distinct parallel processes; refusal requires Section 14 hearing and Se....
The Controller must provide a reasoned decision on pre-grant opposition addressing all raised grounds, particularly under Sections 3(d) and 3(e), to ensure compliance with natural justice standards.
A pre-grant opposition is in the nature of an aid to examination and is not an adversarial proceeding and thus no right of the Petitioner can be said to be violated so as to invoke the extraordinary ....
The recommendation of the Opposition Board is not binding, and a writ petition challenging it is not maintainable; objections can be raised during hearings before the Controller.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
