The Delhi high Court in CM No. 6436/2013 in RFA (OS) 92/2012, CM No.6433/2013 in RFA (OS) 103/2012 in F. Hoffmann- La Rochee Ltd. and others V. Cipla recalled the interim order dated 1st April 2013 in the dispute that had directed the IPAB proceedings between Cipla and third party applicant be deferred. The Delhi High Court directed that continuation of the proceedings between the Roche and third party before the IPAB. The issue before the Division bench of Delhi high court was whether the proceedings between third party and Roche (Appellants) pertaining to the grant of patent vide Patent No. 196774 in favour of Roche be deferred till the cross appeals between the appellants and respondents in the above petitions have be decided.
The Delhi high court observed:
The normal rule of law is that unless a power is specifically vested in a Court to restrain a party from prosecuting remedy before any Judicial Forum, it is only in exceptional circumstances should such an order; akin to an ante-suit injunction, be passed. The Delhi high court observed that the Patent's Act do not provide the same and observed relying upon provisions of Trademark Act further that specialized Tribunals wherever constituted should be left free to decide matters falling within their jurisdiction and it would be advisable for a Court, if law so empowers the Court, to defer proceedings before the Court. The reason is that specialized Tribunals have experts as Members of the Tribunal and their opinion would be valuable. The Delhi High Court also observed that that the litigating parties may in seeking revocation of patent like in the present case may plead on the same issue different "span of time" leading to varying claims and thereby recalled the interim order and directed the proceeding between the Roche and third party continue before the IPAB. The matter in this case was with respect to patent granted to Roche (Appellant) for cancer treatment drug erotinib, Patent No. 196774 that was be contested by Cipla on the ground on non-discloser under section 8 and section 64 of the patent Act. This patent was contested by some other third parties before the IPAB on the ground on non-discloser and compliance to section 64 of the Patent’s Act. Hoffmann, the world’s leading drug maker had acquired patent protection for its drug erotinib. The Patent‘s act provides under section 8 that the applicant to patent is required to disclose and inform from time to time all the information in regard to every application that is made in respect of the same invention in any other country to the Controller of information at the Patent’s office.
Skip & continue
Disclaimer
In Compliance with Indian Regulations, Kindly Review the User Acknowledgement and Disclaimer below and then Proceed.
User Acknowledgement
By proceeding further and clicking on the "ACCEPT" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about Law Senate (LS) for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from Law Senate (LS) or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this website. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below
This website (www.lawsenate.com) is a resource for informational purposes only and is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Law Senate (LS) does not warrant that the information contained on this website is accurate or complete, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause. Law Senate (LS) further assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the information contained on this website, nor does it offer a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The owner/Partners of this website do not intend links from this site to other internet websites to be referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with the linked entities. Law Senate (LS) is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties about, the contents of Web sites to which links may be provided from this Web site.
This website is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation and the contents of the website should not be construed as legal advice. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship and should not rely on information provided herein and should always seek the advice of competent counsel licensed to practice in the reader's country/state. Transmission, receipt or use of this website does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this website should act, or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this site.
Furthermore, the owner of this website does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this Web site or in a country/state where this website fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of Internet e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending email over the Internet.
As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, lawyers are not permitted to advertise themselves. The information about the Firm, its Key Practice Areas or its Key Team Members provided under this website is only for informational purposes and it should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertisement of any nature whatsoever.
The information provided on this website is for general information only. It is not intended to create or promote an attorney-client relationship and does not constitute and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice.
Communications via this website also do not create an attorney-client relationship. Visitor should always seek appropriate professional advice before acting on the basis of any information contained herein.
