Enzalutamide Case: The Regents Of The University Of California V. Union Of India And Others (2019)

PREFACE

The High Court of Delhi on 16.05.19 has set aside the impugned order delivered by the Controller on 08.11.16 in the case of ‘The Regents of the University of California (hereinafter referred as the petitioner) v. Union of India & Others’ (hereinafter referred as the respondent), further remanding the controller to decide the case on merits afresh and let the pending application be disposed of. The single bench had delved deep into length and breadth of section 25(1) of Indian Patent Act, 1970 and Rule 55 of Patent Rules, 2003 and their application upon which the Court held that the order passed by the controller was erroneous as judgement was passed in favour of respondents by ignoring the affidavits submitted by the petitioner.

DEVELOPMENTS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PRESENT PETITION

The petitioner is a research organization based in California, whose invention titled “Diarylhydantoin Compounds” with Indian application number 9668/DELNP/2007 and PCT international application number PCT/US2006/011417 seeks patent protection for the principal claim – the formula of ENZALUTAMIDE is given below.

The impugned order of the Ld. Controller rejected the patent application based on the pre-grant representations filed by respondents – which forms the main contention of the present intention.

ISSUES

The main issues or heart of the case is to decide whether the Ld. Controller violated the principles of natural justice and overlooked the affidavits placed by the petitioner while arriving at the impugned order of rejecting the patent application.

SINGLE JUDGE’S JUDGEMENT ON THE ISSUES OF THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS

The Petitioner contended that the Bohl document, on the basis of which the Ld. Controller rejected the patent application, was filed at the time of oral hearing and the petitioner has no opportunity to effectively deal with the same thereby the principle of natural justice has been violated.

Single Bench of Delhi High court dismissed the petitioner’s contention of violation of principles of natural justice due to the reason that the petitioner had made the oral submission and the written submission on said document at pre-grant stage though the document was filed at the time of hearing.

Based on sub rule (5) of Rule 55 of the Indian Patents Rules, the learned single Judge observed that the proceedings relating to a pre-grant representation are part of the process of examination and the Ld. Controller should not ignore any document at pre-grant stage. In view of this, Single Bench of Delhi High court dismissed the petitioner’s contention to ignore the Bohl document as the document was not part of pre-grant representation and was filed during the hearing proceedings.

The court held that the petitioner’s contention to submit the evidence in the pre-grant representation by way of affidavit is erroneous and rejected by referring the case, M/s UCB Farchim SA v. M/s Cipla Ltd. &Ors.: (2010) II AD Del. 713. Single Bench of Delhi High court observed that the section 25(1) of the Patents Act merely requires the representation to be in writing and there is no requirement of a pre-grant opposition to be supported by an affidavit.

The judge opined that the plain reading of the impugned order clearly indicates that the conclusions drawn by the Ld. Controller are not directly related to the issues addressed in one of the affidavit. Further, the court observed that even if the affidavits are irrelevant, the Ld. Controller has to indicate the same in the order. As the impugned order is completely silent on the affidavits placed by the petitioner, the court set aside the impugned order of Ld. Controller.

The court had also rejected the plea made by the respondent that the petitioner had notreferred to the affidavits of the experts at the hearing or in the writtensubmissions and, therefore, it was not open for the petitioner to assertthat theaffidavits had been ignored. The High Court stresses on the petitioner’s initial paragraphs of its written submissions which clearly stated as under:-

“As the pre-grant opposition procedure is acontinuation of theprosecution of the application, it issubmitted that our response to the First ExaminationReport, reply statements to the representation made by Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited, and all thedeclarations of Dr. Sawyers, Dr. Jung and Mr. Schafer (the petitioners) be taken as part and parcel of the present submissionsand the same are not being reproduced herein for thesake of brevity.” (para 57, page 36).

CONCLUSION

The High Court had finally held that the impugned order is set aside for the reasonthat the Ld. Controller had failed to consider the affidavits of the expertsplaced by the petitioner and the matter is remanded to the Controller to decide the decision afresh.

Author:  Dhakshina Moorthy C, Associate Director and Rajasri Thota, intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at dhakshina@iiprd.com.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

16 − six =

Archives

  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010