FREE access to all copyright case briefs
Sign up now !
Indian Network for People Living with HIV/AIDS and Anr. v. Union of India Controller of Patents &Anr.
[(2009) 1 CTC 32, (2009) 39 PTC 468]
Coram: Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice A.K Ganguly and Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla.
Forum: Hon’ble High Court of Madras
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 24904 and M.P Nos. 2 & 3 of 2008.
Date of Decision: December 2, 2008.
Conclusion
right-arrow

Facts:

  • The Petitioner, in this case, was a registered society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, providing support to people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV) in areas such as access to medicine, treatment, and addressing the discrimination faced by PLHIV in Indian society.
  • The Petitioners focused on offering assistance to PLHIV, particularly in crucial areas like access to medicine and treatment, and combating discrimination against PLHIV in Indian society. The members of the Petitioner’s organizations were Indian citizens.
  • Respondent no. 4 was F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, a pharmaceutical company registered in Switzerland. They had filed a Patent Application for a drug called Valganciclovir, used to treat CMC retinitis.
  • Subsequently, on 12.07.2006, the Petitioners submitted a representation opposing a Patent Application filed by the 4th Respondent during the pre-grant stage under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970.
  • In their submission, the Petitioners argued that the Indian Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, was enacted to align the said Act with the TRIPS obligations.
  • The central contention of the Petitioners was that inventions related to products disclosed before 1995 were part of the public domain and continue to be so, even after the enactment of the Amendment Act.
  • The Petitioners asserted that any product patent application for an invention in the public domain before 1995 should be rejected on grounds of lacking novelty.
  • Based on these contentions, among others, the Petitioners filed their representation opposing the grant of a patent to the 4th Respondent, citing the provisions of Section 25(1)(f) and 25(1)(h) of the said Act.

Background/Procedural History:

The petition seeks a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It sought to review the records of Patent Application No. 959/MAS/1995 and Patent No. 207232, quash the granted patent, and direct Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to reconsider Patent Application No. 959/MAS/1995 after hearing the petitioners as per the Patents Act, 1970.

Main Issue:

Whether any person has the right to object at the pre-grant stage of a patent?

Go Top
right-arrow