Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SENTHILKUMAR
E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Commerce Department Of Industrial Policy & Promotion – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of opposition board recommendation. (Para 1 , 2 , 10) |
| 2. petitioners argue evidence not considered. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. analysis of procedural irregularities. (Para 7 , 13 , 14 , 22 , 28) |
| 4. final authority not bound by recommendations. (Para 25 , 26 , 30) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed as not maintainable. (Para 31) |
ORDER :
N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.
The present writ petition is filed challenging the recommendation of the Opposition Board in Patent No.IN340060 (Patent Application No.5057/CHENP/2007) dated 31.01.2023 made by the second respondent in Patent No.IN340060 with regard to post grant opposition proceedings, as per Section 25 (2) of the Patents Act, 1970 , which was initiated by the third respondent herein. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The Indian Patent No.340060 was granted in respect of an invention titled as 'Human Monocolonal Antibodies to Programmed Death I (PD-1) for use in Cancer', which is used for treating cancer. An application was made in A. No.5057/CHEMP/2007, which is a national phase entry of International (PCT) Application No.PCT/JP2006/209606, which was filed on 02.05.2006 and came to be published
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.
Patents Act requires adherence to procedures in post-grant oppositions, emphasizing natural justice and timely resolutions to prevent delays in patent adjudication.
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 need for a systematic manner in conducting pre-grant oppositions and the right to file affidavits of own experts in rebuttal.
The court highlighted the importance of timely adjudication in patent opposition proceedings and mandated adherence to procedural timelines.
Quasi-judicial orders under Patents Act dismissing post-grant oppositions must provide cogent reasons and technical analysis under Section 25(2)(c); unreasoned orders are set aside and remanded.
The introduction of a dichotomy in patent law between pre-grant and post-grant opposition necessitates adherence to legislative intent, despite procedural delays in enactment.
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
