In the earlier post, the pre-grant objections to the Valganciclovir application of Roche were discussed (which had some really earthy and practical comments on interpretation of s.8 of the Patents Act, notably by Indian Patent Agent). According to news reports and updates by Lawyers Collective, the Supreme Court has ordered Roche not to pursue the patent infringement case against Cipla until such time the post-grant oppositions against the patent have been disposed off. The Court has asked the Controller to dispose the opposition proceedings within 12 weeks after which the remaining issues would be listed before the Court. Roche too, for its part has given an undertaking that it shall not seek an order restraining others from selling generic versions of the drug. The Court further said that the NGOs could intervene in the opposition proceedings and could raise all grounds to oppose the grant of the patent.
The critical question is whether the amended wording of s8(1)(b) to keep the Controller informed ‘up to the date of grant’ and the addition of s8(2) (and R12(3)) can apply retrospectively?
@ Anon @12:27 : The term up to the date of grant is for updating the status of the application. However it can be also used as argument.
@ Others : Did anyone get hold of this judgment and had time to analyze it?
Would love to see a comment or post on it.
Patently Yours