Delhi HC dismisses Bayer’s plea against Natco’s CL


In a short order, the Delhi High Court dismissed, as withdrawn, a writ petition filed by Bayer against the publication of Natco’s CL application by the Controller General of Patents. The same petition had been filed by Bayer before the Bombay High Court earlier this month. We blogged about it over here. The order of the Delhi High Court has been pasted before:
O R D E R

 16.11.2011


The petitioner impugns the order dated 11.08.2011 passed by the Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Mumbai in C.L.A. No.1 of 2011. It has been pointed out to learned senior counsel for the petitioner that  the impugned order merely records a prima facie view that a case under Section 84(1) of the Patents Act has been established. The petitioner is  still entitled to contest the said proceedings before the Controller of  Patents.


Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that before  arriving at the said prima facie view, the Controller of Customs has not  conducted any enquiry and not recorded ay evidence. It shall be open to  the petitioner to raise all such pleas before the Controller of Patents in answer to the notice. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner wishes  to withdraw this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed as  withdrawn.


 VIPIN SANGHI, J

Prashant Reddy

Prashant Reddy

T. Prashant Reddy graduated from the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, with a B.A.LLB (Hons.) degree in 2008. He later graduated with a LLM degree (Law, Science & Technology) from the Stanford Law School in 2013. Prashant has worked with law firms in Delhi and in academia in India and Singapore. He is also co-author of the book Create, Copy, Disrupt: India's Intellectual Property Dilemmas (OUP).

2 comments.

  1. AvatarAnonymous

    I think the Del HC’s logic is correct.

    To me, Bayer seemed to have jumped the gun.

    Let the Controller first issue a decision that ‘impedes’/ threatens Bayer’s patent… at this point the Controller has only formed a view that a prima facie case exists for him to hear both parties. To put it an American context, if Bayer would have gone in for a declaratory action, the Court here too would have dismissed it since there was ‘no case or controversy’.

    Regards,
    Freq. Anon.

    Reply
  2. AvatarAnonymous

    I am not sure of what’s going on here…
    a) Bayer wanted to contest the admission of CL papers so it filed suit at Mumbai High Court;
    b) This was dismissed for action at Delhi;
    c) They filed papers at Delhi High Court and then ‘petitioner wishes to withdraw this petition’. IF they were to withdraw, why did they file the papers in Delhi in first place? Could they not wait and see what is the movement on the CL application itself?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.