UCB FARCHIM SA Vs. CIPLA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six petitions raise an important question of law concerning the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge an order passed by the Controller of Patents (Controller.) either allowing or rejecting a pre-grant opposition filed under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 (Patents Act.).

(2.) Before discussing the facts of the individual cases the scheme of the Patents Act, particularly after the amendment to the relevant provisions by way of Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Amendment Act.) as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in J. Mitra & Company v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, 2008 10 SCC 368 require to be examined. The statutory scheme of the relevant provisions of the Patents Act

(3.) Section 15 of the Patents Act states that where the Controller is satisfied that the application for grant of patent, or any specification or any other document filed in pursuance thereof, does not comply with the requirement of the Patents Act or the Rules, the Controller may refuse the application or may require the application, specification or other documents, as the case may be, to be amended to the satisfaction before he proceeds with the application or refuse the application on failure to do so.