Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a patent granted to Sugen Inc. USA and Pharmacia and Upjohn Company USA, which was subsequently revoked by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Design following an application by Cipla Ltd. The patent, numbered 209251, was initially recommended for grant in 2007 and published in the Patent Office Journal. Cipla Ltd. sought revocation under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act, 1970, leading to the Controller's order on September 24, 2012. The Supreme Court heard extensive arguments regarding the Controller's order and the High Court's decisions. The primary issue was the non-furnishing of the Opposition Board's recommendation to the parties involved. The Court noted that while the Act and Rules did not explicitly require the report to be shared, the principles of natural justice necessitated that parties be informed of the reasons behind the Opposition Board's recommendations. The Court found that the Controller's reliance on the report without providing it to the parties rendered the order invalid. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Controller's order and the subsequent High Court orders, directing the Controller to reconsider the matter afresh, ensuring all parties had the opportunity to present their arguments regarding the Opposition Board's recommendation. The Controller was instructed to resolve the matter within one month of communication of the order. The Supreme Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving those issues for the Controller to decide.
Headnote
A) Patent Law - Opposition Proceedings - Natural Justice Violation - Patents Act, 1970, Section 25(4) - The Controller's reliance on the Opposition Board's recommendation without providing a copy to the parties violated principles of natural justice, necessitating a remand for fresh consideration. Held that parties must be informed of the reasons for recommendations to effectively present their case (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the non-furnishing of the Opposition Board's recommendation to the parties constituted a violation of natural justice.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the Controller's order dated September 24, 2012, and the subsequent High Court orders, remanding the matter for fresh consideration with directions to afford all parties an opportunity to present their contentions regarding the Opposition Board's recommendation, to be resolved within one month.
Law Points
- Patent law
- natural justice
- opposition proceedings
- patent revocation
- statutory board recommendations
