Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited – Appellant
Versus
Controller of Patents – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. discusses maintainability and jurisdiction issues post-tra. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. facts regarding revocation petitions under section 64 of the 1970 act. (Para 5 , 6 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. details on context of infringement suits relating to patents. (Para 7 , 8 , 12 , 19) |
| 4. arguments on jurisdictional issues for revocation petitions. (Para 16 , 30 , 31 , 63) |
| 5. conclusions on maintainability and appeals to appropriate courts. (Para 104 , 106 , 110) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. Issues of maintainability have been raised in these three proceedings under the Patents Act, 1970(hereinafter `1970 Act'). There are two categories of cases:
i. C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) No.3/2021 and C.O.(COMM.IPD- PAT) No.1/2022 are revocation petitions seeking revocation of granted patents under Section 64 of the 1970 Act;
ii. C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 169/2022 is an appeal under Section 117A of the 1970 Act.
3. The enactment of the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 (hereinafter `TRA') resulted in the abolishing of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter `IPAB'). All matters which were pending before the IPAB stood transferred to the High Courts. Post the
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
