In a significant legal pronouncement, the Delhi High Court Bench, presided over by Justice C Hari Shankar, has issued a landmark ruling clarifying the status of revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act in relation to Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Brief Facts:
The ruling comes in response to a complex legal dispute between petitioners and respondent-Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH. The matter at hand involves a revocation petition (CO (Comm. IPD-PAT) 3/2021) filed on October 16, 2021, seeking to cancel patent IN 268846 held by Respondent 2, which pertains to an anti-diabetic drug. The revocation petition was processed and registered promptly, leading to a scheduled hearing on October 22, 2021.
The legal battle took an intricate turn when Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH swiftly filed two separate lawsuits (COMS 5/2021 and COMS 7/2021) accusing the petitioners of patent infringement on October 19 and 21, 2021, respectively. Both these lawsuits resulted in stay orders from the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
The central issue before the Delhi High Court revolved around whether a revocation petition should be treated as a "suit" within the purview of Section 10 of the CPC. Justice C Hari Shankar held that a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act does not fall within the scope of a "suit" as defined by Section 10 of the CPC.
Contentions by the Parties:
The petitioners argued that a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act should be considered a "suit" under Section 10 of the CPC. They asserted that the absence of a specific definition of "suit" in Section 10 allows for a broader interpretation, considering the similarities between a revocation petition and a suit. The petitioners emphasized the benefits of this approach in terms of judicial efficiency and consistency, particularly given the overlapping issues with parallel lawsuits.
On the other side, the respondents firmly opposed the notion of deeming a revocation petition as a "suit." They maintained that the court lacks the authority to create a deeming fiction in the absence of a legislative mandate. They underlined the distinct purposes of the Patents Act and the CPC and argued that treating a revocation petition as a "suit" would blur these legal boundaries. The respondents also highlighted that Section 10 of the CPC only stays the trial of a suit, preserving the court's authority to issue interlocutory orders, which distinguishes it from the present scenario.
Observations by the Court:
Justice Shankar expounded on the court's reasoning by highlighting the absence of any statutory provision that designates a revocation petition as a "suit." The court emphasized that the power to create deeming fictions lies with the legislature and cannot be unilaterally imposed by the court. Referring to established legal principles and prior case law, Justice Shankar articulated that the court could not invoke a deeming fiction in the absence of a legislative mandate.
Furthermore, the court elucidated that while Section 10 of the CPC does indeed stay the trial of a suit, it does not suspend the proceedings themselves. This implies that even if the conditions of Section 10 are met, the court still retains the authority to issue interlocutory orders under relevant provisions.
Decision of the Court:
The application was dismissed.
Case Name: DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR vs THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ORS
Coram: Justice C Hari Shankar,
Case No.: C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2021
Advocates of the Petitioners: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. G. Nataraj, Mr. Shashi Kant Yadav and Mr. Rahul Bhujbal, Advs.
Advocatess of the Respondent: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Sagar Mehlawat and Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Advs. for R-1 Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Adv with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Arpita Sawhney, Mr. Arun Kumar Jana, Ms. Meenal Khurana, Mr. Harshit Dixit and Mr. Priyansh Sharma, Advs. for R-2
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
