N.D.O.H 28.03 - spicyip.com · IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI ... contents of the Writ Petition and the...

N.D.O.H 28.03.2016

~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELifii (EXTRA ORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5590 OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

SHAMNAD BASHEER PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS RESPONDENTS

REJOINDER IN REPLY TO COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BELHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 3

INDEX

S.NO P ARTICULAR(S) PAGE NO

1.

2.

Rejoinder in reply to Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, along with affidavit

ANNEXURE P-19: The list of documents pertaining to IN215758, accessible from the official website of Respondent No.2

1-22

23-26

FILED BY:-

New Delhi Date : 21.03.2016 N. SAIVINOD

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER D-131 (Basement),

Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi -110 017

E: [email protected] M: (0)88 26 56 1767

~ -

. ·'

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRA ORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5590 OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION


VERSUS


REJOINDER TO THE COUNTER AFFIOA VIT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NOS. 1 TO 3

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1.

2.

At the outset, the Petitioner denies all the averments made

in the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent

Nos. 1 to 3 to the extent they are contrary or inconsistent

with the contents of Writ Petition or the Affidavit-in

Support of Writ Petition or the present Rejoinder. Nothing

contained in the Counter Affidavit should be deemed to

have been admitted, save as expressly stated herein. The

contents of the Writ Petition and the Affidavit-in-Support

thereof may be read as part and parcel of the present

Rejoinder and hence are not being repeated herein for

sake of brevity.

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS

The Respondents have effectively acknowledged and

admitted to the widespread statutory breaches and

irregularities by Patentees in disclosing patent working

.information, as per the Patents Act, 1970. Despite their

complete knowledge, it is evident that the Respondents

·.-.

'

·,\;

;I

have failed to take any corrective measures for ensuring

compliance with the patent disclosure norms. More

egregiously, the Respondents have attempted to justify

their callous disregard for an important statutory

provision and their inaction against errant patentees by

stating that the imposition of statutory penalties, as

mandated under Section 122, may discourage Patentees

and Licensees from voluntarily disclosing the working

information. Thus, the present state of affairs reveals a

blatant dereliction of an important statutory duty under

Sections 146 read with 122 of the Patents Act and Rules

thereunder.

A. Public consultation

3. During the pendency of the current proceedings before

this Hon'ble Court, the Respondent authorities stated that

the Petitioner could submit all of his concerns (as raised in

the present Writ Petition) to them under the wide rubric of

a public consultation process. However, the said

consultation appears to have been initiated by the Central

Government on 26.10.2015, to suggest changes to the draft

'The Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2015' ('Amendment

Rules or Patent Rules, 2015'). As per the Notification, the

Respondent authorities provided a window of 30 days,

i.e., until 25.11.2015, for the general public to submit their

comments and suggestions on the draft Patent Rules, 2015.

However, it is pertinent to note that the present Counter

Affidavit under reply was filed on 07.12.2015, after the

expiry of the window for the public consultation, and

therefore this gracious liberty granted by the Respondents

;

r.:

'• ;··

. ·~"""-"'""''···=··----~=='•"'''•'"'~,,

rt:

4.

,,, 3

to the Petitioner to participate in the consultation process

was futile and thoroughly meaningless.

Without prejudice, it is humbly submitted that the public

consultation proposed by the Central Government is

highly misleading and is not even remotely concerned

with the legitimate concerns raised in this Writ Petition.

As evident from the Notification dated 26.10.2015, the

mandate of the consultation is limited to certain proposed

amendments to the Patents Rules, 2003. Therefore, the

present consultation does not deal with the aspects

pertaining to blatant dereliction of statutory duty and

obligation designed to foster public interest and

transparency in the patent system, i.e., the compliance

with the patent working information prescribed under

Section 146 of the Patents Act.

B. Non-disclosure of patent working data

5. The Respondent authorities have effectively

acknowledged and admitted that there is widespread non

compliance by Patentees and Licensees in declaring their

patent working information, as required under Section

146(2) of the Patents Act. Significantly, the Respondents

did not controvert the following glaring deficiencies

highlighted in the Writ Petition:

(a) The Annual Report the Controller of Patents (2012-

13), Respondent No. 2 herein, has revealed that a

vast majority of Patentees have failed to comply

with FORM-27 filing requirement between the years

2009 and 2012. [See Annexure P-7 at Page No. 100-

107]

r~·

:'.'·

(b) The Respondents, in reply to an RTI application

dated 06.03.2014 [See Annexure P-12(i) at Page No.

145], stated that none of the Licensees filed their

FORM-27 declarations till ·date [See Annexure P-

12(ii) at Page No. 146-147]. Moreover, the

Respondents con~eded that the waiver of FORM-27

filing requirement by Licensees, as suggested by

Respondent No. 2 in reply to RTI application dated

06.03.2014, is wrong and contrary to the plain

W~J~ reading of the statutory provision.

(c) The e-filing facility does not contain any provision

for the Paten tees "and Licensees to disclose the

quantum of the . patented product that is either

imported or locally manufactured. Moreover, thee

facility does not provide any option to submit any

additional information that maybe relevant for

ascertaining th~ working of patent, even if Patentees

so desires to submit. [See Annexure P-13 at Page No.

148]

(d) The Respondents, in reply to RTI applications dated

12.02.2014 and 06.02.2015, stated that NATCO

Pharma Ltd. is yet to file their quarterly returns

pertaining to manufacture and sales of Sorefanib

Tosylate, an anti-cancer drug which was subject to a

compulsory license vide dated 09.03.2012 in C.L. No.

1 of 2011. [See Annexure P-15 (Colly) at 162-167]

Strikingly, however, the Respondent authorities in

reply to Paragraph No. 31 in their Counter Affidavit

stated that "the said information regarding the Royalty,

.. ,,' .·.

Net sales etc. is likely to be visible in the Module (View

application details) of the official website

(w'f!-nJ?,.ipindi.fL:.nic.in) of The Controller General of Patents

Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM)." It is humbly

submitted that the averments contained in the

Counter Affidavit are starkly contrary and

inconsistent to the replies provided under the RTI

Act. More importantly, a perusal of various

documents accessible from the official website (as

per the instruction) did not contain any information

pertaining to patent working data filed by NATCO

Pharma. The list of documents pertaining to

IN215758, accessible from the official website of

Respondent No. 2, is annexed herewith as

ANNEXURE P-19.

6. It is humbly submitted that the present state of affairs

adversely impacts the citizens' right to know as to how a

granted patent is serving the larger public interest. Lack of

access to patent working information directly impacts the

compulsory licensing scheme under the Patents Act and

thereby denies consumers and the wider public access to

patented technologies, a concern most starkly felt in the

area of patented medicines and public health. In fact, the

Respondent No. 2 recently rejected a compulsory licensing

application filed by Lee Pharma against Astra Zeneca' s

patented drug, Saxagliptin, bearing No. 206543, on the

ground that the Applicant had not even established a

prima facie case for the grant of such license. Pertinently,

the Respondent No. 2 chided the Applicant for failing to

submit any data demonstrating that the patented drug

had not met the reasonable requirements of the public. It

IS highly paradoxical that on the one hand, the

Respondent authorities insist that Applicants submit data

on patent working and public access, and on the other,

fails to secure credible and comprehensive patent working

information from Patentees, a party who is more readily in

the possession of such information.

C. Limited public access to patent working data

7. It is denied that the Module on the Official Website of

Respondent No. 2 provided complete access to FORM-27

filings by Patentees. Moreover, the Respondents have

admitted that their online database for public access to

FORM-27 filings is limited to the calendar years 2012 and

2013 only. As a result, the FORM-27 filings pertaining to

the years 2003 to 2011, 2014 and 2015 are not conveniently

available for public viewing. In view of this, the Hon'ble

Court maybe please to direct the Respondents to publish

the entire information relating to commercial working of

patents in the said database, for all years. It is pertinent to

note that the Respondents are equipped with state-of-the

art facility to store digital records of patent documents,

hence, there is no additional burden or hardship In

creating a comprehensive portal for FORM-27 filings.

D. Widespread defective compliance

8. As stated at Paragraph Nos. 23 to 25 of the Writ Petition,

the findings of the survey conducted by the Petitioner,

spanning over 140 critical patents, revealed a significant

number of defective declarations by Patentees. In reply,

the Respondents have effectively admitted that many such

submissions were found to be grossly incomplete,

;.-

f ' E

~

9.

·. '

10.

·, "i

gvo 7

incomprehensible or inaccurate. For the sake of

convenience, the summary of the findings is reproduced

below:

NATURE OF DEFECTS TOTAL

F-27s %

QUANTITY Undisclosed 79 38.3 Indeterminate Units 71 58.1

VALUE Undisclosed 84. 38.3 Forei n Denomination 4 0.1

MANUFACTURE Location Undisclosed 109 50.3 LICENSING Undisclosed 89 33.5 INFORMATION Undisclosed Details 33 50.4 NON-WORKING Reasons Undisclosed 28 66.7

It ·is reiterated that the defective disclosures make a

mockery of an important statutory obligation enshrined in

Section 146 and Rule 131 of the Patents Act. This practice,

if allowed to continue, would defeat the entire objective

behind the working requirement, thereby causing

prejudice to innovation imperatives and the public interest

involved in ensuring optimal working of patented ·

inventions.

E. Inaction against Patentees and Licensees

Despite their extensive knowledge of state of affairs, the

Respondents have admittedly failed to initiate any action

against errant Patentees and their Licensees. More

egregiously, the Respondents have justified their inaction

by stating that penal measures may discourage patentees

from disclosing patent working information. Shockingly,

the Respondents have mechanically accepted and allowed

defective and insufficient FORM-27 filings by Patentees

without any application of mind. In effect, the

Respondents have waived a mandatory statutory

.. !:

' .....

8

requirement imposed under the Patents Act and

encouraged Patentees to wantonly ignore and breach it. In

view of the above, this Hon'ble Court maybe pleased to

grant the following directions to the Respondents:

1. To strictly enforce compliance with Section 146(2)

read with Rule 131(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 and

Rules by every Patentee and Licensee;

11. To initiate proceedings under Section 122(1) of the

Patents Act, 1970 against errant Patentees and

Licensees for non-compliance with the mandatory

requirement under Section 146(2) read with Rule

131(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 and Rules;

111. To direct Respondents to issue notices to Patentees

and Licensees, as per Section 146(1) of the Patents

Act, to rectify and redress incomplete disclosure of

patent working information and furnish true and

complete information in relation to; and

IV. To rectify the format for 'comprehensive online

filing services for patents' to enable Patentees and

Licensees to submit full and complete working

information in accordance with the Patents Act,

1970 and Rules.

F. Defects in the existing format of the FORM-27

11. As stated at Paragraph No. 63 of the Writ Petition, the

Petitioner demonstrated certain glaring defects in the

current format of FORM-27. It was urged that the current

format is vaguely worded and fails to call for a number of

important particulars, and hence, the current format of

9

FORM-27 is irrational and patently insufficient to fulfil its

purpose envisaged under the Patents Act. In their reply,

the Respondents have effectively acknowledged and

admitted the concerns raised in the Writ Petition, and

have proposed changes to replace the existing format, vide

draft Patents Rules, 2015. It is noteworthy that the

Amended FORM-27 format incorporated some of the

concerns raised in the Writ Petition:, such as:

(a) The latest format has done away with the vaguely

worded phrase 'give zohatever details available'.

(b) The latest format compels the Licensee to state the

nature of license received from the Patentee (i.e.,

exclusive or otherwise).

(c) The latest format has done away with the

requirement to self-attest '·whether reasonable public

requirements have been met partially, sufficiently or

adequately?'.

(d) The latest format imposes a requirement to disclose

the details of products commercialized by using the

said patent.

12. Though laudable, the latest format fails to call several

other critical particulars which are necessary to fulfil the

statutory duty. In fact, some of the suggestions outlined in

the Writ Petition were blatantly ignored without any

reason, and the same are reiterated below for the sake of

convenience:

(a) The latest format requires Patentees and Licensees to

provide the 'value' of the patent. This, however, fails

to capture the actual 'sale' of the patented invention

•,' .1

.:'·.

,, ·,1

oJt~i; ·~··"·

in India. In other words, the latest format fails to

indicate the actual extent to which the patent has

been made available to general public. Furthermore,

it is not clear what is meant by "value" of the

product. As a result, one cannot assess if the

Patentee is able to meet the reasonable requirement

of public.

(b) The latest format of FORM-27 continues to require

the Patentees and Licensees to provide the

I quantum' of the patent. The true import of the word

I quantum', however, is unclear inasmuch as it does

not determine the extent to which the product is

available to public. In several noted instances in the

pharmaceutical sector, several Patentees claimed to

have sold or manufactured certain units of their

product. However, the actual quantity (in terms of

dosage and number of tablets) was not provided,

thereby unable to assess the extent of its availability

to the patient population. This aspect was critical

factor in the grant of first compulsory licence in

relation to Nexavar® (C.L!A No. 1 of 2011 before the

Controller of Patents) as stated in the Writ Petition.

(c) The latest format fails to address various concerns

relating to the licensing of patents, in particular, the

anti-competitive practices in the telecommunication

industry. In fact, the ~ompetition Commission of

India (CCI) is currently investigating. into such

licensing practices pertaining to mobile

technologies. The latest format fails to provide any

r.

13.

fJ14 11

indication or guidance in relation to the broad

nature and terms of licence.

(d) The latest format of FORM-27 has rightly done away

with the question: "whether the reasonable

requirements of public have been met?" However,

the proposed format fails to solicit requisite

information necessary for Respondent authorities to

assess the extent of demand and availability of the

patent to general public. Our Petition has suggested

few pointers in this regard, as below:

i) estimated demand of the patented invention

or product;

ii) extent to which the demand has been met (i.e.,

availability);

iii) details of any special schemes or steps

undertaken by the patentee to satisfy the

demand.

It is humbly submitted that the Respondent authorities

did not controvert or provide any reply to the specific

concerns pertaining to the defective format urged in the

Writ Petition and the Affidavit-in-Support filed by the

Petitioner. Furthermore, the public consultation in relation

to the draft Patent Rules were meaningless, as the present

Counter Affidavit under reply . was filed after the

conclusion of public consultation. Moreover, the

Respondent authorities have failed to provide any details

on the modalities for conducting the public consultation,

i.e., the mechanism to review comments, expertise of

members evaluating the comments, date and venue for

,_ .. ;: ..

~-:

~· ' ...

: .; l •. ,,

, .. ··,

i.·:·.·.

)· '"

tJ;( 12

public dialogue. Moreover, the alleged public consultation

appears to be a diversionary tactic to deflect the attention

of this Hon'ble Court which is currently seized of the

matter. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the public

consultation is completely arbitrary and meaningless.

14. Without prejudice, it is evident that the Respondent

authorities had the complete knowledge of various

concerns raised in the present Writ Petition and have

addressed some of the concerns as pointed at Paragraph

No. 11 above. As stated at Paragraph No. 63 of the Writ

Petition, the Petitioner demonstrated certain glaring

by repeating the present submissions by way of

additional formal representation. Nevertheless, it

i an;

I I . ,'/'

IS

humbly submitted that the public consultation is of no

avail and meaningless inasmuch as the draft Patent Rules,

2015 have failed to take into account several other

suggestions and concerns raised in the Writ Petition. In a

nutshell, therefore, the Respondents appears to have

arbitrarily prejudged the comments and suggestions

raised by the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner prays

this Hon'ble Court:

i) To direct the Respondents to ensure that Patentees

and Licenses comply with the statutory mandate;

and

ii) Constitute an expert committee to recommend an

optimal format for patent working disclosures. Such

committee could then take into account all the

i-··

,,

aspects raised in th~ present Petition, including the

comments and suggestions received from general

public as part of the public consultation initiated by

the Respondents.

PARA WISE REPLY

15. The contents of Paragraph Nos. (i) and (ii) do not require

any reply.

REPLY TO PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS

16. In reply to the contents of Paragraph A, it is submitted

that the present Writ Petition seeks reliefs against the

glaring deficiencies in the implementation of norms on

patent working disclosures, inter alia seeks relief against

the widespread non-compliance by Patentees and

Licensees. It is denied that the present format of the

FORM-27 calls for all the requisite information pertaining

to patent working. On the contrary, the proposal to

replace the existing format of FORM-27 is an admission of

the serious lacunae in the format. The rest of contents are

matters of record, hence, no reply is necessary.

17. The contents of Paragraph Bare vague and blatantly false.

The Respondents have failed to specify a11y steps taken

against errant Patentees and Licensees to enforce the

provisions of the Patents Act. Even more egregiously, the

Respondents have effectively defied the mandatory

statutory duty imposed under Section 146 in failing to

exercise their penal powers against errant Patentees. In

sum, the inaction of Respondents is a dereliction of

statutory duty imposed under the Patents Act.

'," I

~ ..

. . ; ~!

.. ·!

... ,

i.

:.·I

: . • : I~

f1Y t4

18. In reply to the contents of Paragraph C, it is submitted

that the steps to conduct public consultation is not meant

to address the deficiencies and discrepancies in patent

working norms. Furthermore, the public consultation is

entirely farcical inasmuch as it was brought to the

attention of this Hon'ble Court after the bringing .the

impugned amendments into force. The preliminary

submissions at Paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 12 are reiterated

and are not repeated for the sake of brevity.

REJOINDER TO THE PARAWISE REPLY

19. The contents of Counter Affidavit in reply to Paragraph

Nos. 1 to 10 are admitted to the extent it is borne out from

the records, and the corresponding submissions made in

the Writ Petition are reiterated.


Nos. 11 are thoroughly insufficient for purpose of

enabling public access to patent working information.

Furthermore, the submissions pertaining to the lack of

systems to maintain copies of FORM-27 in the patent

registry are contrary and inconsistent to the extent that

details of working patents were allegedly being published

in the Gazette of India (Part III, Section 2). As noted at

Paragraph No. 6 above, the online database containing

patent working information is limited to the years 2012

and 2013, and not before or after.


No. 12 do not require any reply.

r·.• (

~-.

~:'

15


No. 13 are denied to the extent that it is inconsistent with

the corresponding submissions made in the Writ Petition.


Nos. 14 to 21 are admitted, and the corresponding

submissions made in the Writ Petition are reiterated.


No. 22 are blatantly false and denied. The rate of

compliance by Patentees over the years 2009 to 2012

presented herein is based entirely on the Annual Report

2012-13 published by Respondent No. 1 and laid before

the Parliament. The rest of the submissions are irrelevant

insofar as the public consultation is limited to comments

and suggestions on the draft Rules.

25. The contents of the Counter Affidavit in reply to

Paragraph No. 23 are irrelevant and are denied to the

extent it IS inconsistent with the corresponding

submissions made in the Writ Petition. The preliminary

submissions at Paragraph Nos. 3, 4, 8 and 9 are reiterated

and are not repeated for the sake of brevity.


Paragraph No. 24 are admitted to the extent it is borne out

from the records, and· the corresponding submissions

made in the Writ Petition are reiterated.


Paragraph No. 25 are false and denied to the extent that it

)·

16

is inconsistent with the corresponding submissions made

in the Writ Petition.


Paragraph Nos. 26 and 27 are admitted to the extent it is

borne out from the records, and the corresponding

submissions made in the Writ Petition are reiterated.

29. The contents of the Counter Affidavit in reply· to

Paragraph No. 28 are admitted to the extent it is borne out

from the records, and the corresponding submissions

made in the Writ Petition are reiterated. It is specifically

reiterated that the e-filing facility does not contain the

provision for the Patentees to disclose the quantum of the

patented product imported or manufactured.




in the Writ Petition. As stated at Paragraph No. 5(c) above,

the inaction of the Respondents, in effect, amounts to a

d waiver of the statutory filing requirement. {(. ~.'.i1!_




in the Writ Petition. It is appalling that the Respondents

have justified their· inaction by claiming to encourage

statutory compliance by neglecting their statutory duty,

i.e., to take penal action provided under Section 122

against errant Patentees and Licensees.

;:

i ,. ~·

~: .; .

. .... ' ~

17


Paragraph Nos. 31 and 32 are blatantly false and denied. It

is humbly submitted that the reply is starkly inconsistent

to the reply provided by Respondent authorities in

relation to an RTI application dated 19.01.2015. It is

further submitted that a perusal of all documents

accessible from the Online Module of the Respondents did

not contain any info;rmation pertaining to patent working

data filed by NATCO Pharma. · The contents of

Preliminary Submissions at Paragraph No. 5(d) are

reiterated and are not repeated for the sake of brevity.


Paragraph Nos. 33 and 34 are false and denied to the

extent that it is inconsistent with the corresponding

submissions made in the Writ Petition. The contents of

Preliminary Submissions at Paragraph Nos. 5 to 10 are

reiterated and are not repeated for the sake of brevity.


Nos. 35 to 51 are admitted to the extent it is borne out


made in the Writ Petition are reiterated. The Petitioner

appreciates the fact that the Respondents have duly

acknowledged the importance of working of patents for

the benefit of public at large.


No. 52 are wrong and contradictory, and hence denied. It

is reiterated that the present format of FORM-27 fails to

call for all requisite particulars necessary to assess the

commercial working of patents.

, .. i

i:

l

f.

;,

36.

~I 18

The contents of Counter Affidavit in reply to Paragraph

Nos. 53 to 62 are admitted to the extent it is borne out


made in the Writ Petition are reiterated. The Petitioner

appreciates the fact that the Respondents have duly

acknowledged the importance of working of patents for

the benefit of public at large.

37. The contents of the Counter Affidavit in reply. to

Paragraph Nos. 63 and 64 are matters of record, hence, no

reply is necessary. It is reiterated that the proposed format

of FORM-27 is still insufficient for reasons stated at

Paragraph Nos. 11 to 13 above.


Paragraph Nos. 65 is matter of record, hence, no reply is

necessary.

REJOINDER TO THE REPLY TO GROUNDS

39. The contents of the reply to Ground A are admitted and

the corresponding submissions are reiterated.

40. The contents of the reply to Ground B are denied and the

corresponding submissions made in the Writ Petition are

reiterated and not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

41. The contents of the reply to Ground Care erroneous and

hence denied. The corresponding submissions made in the

Writ Petition are reiterated and not repeated herein for the

sake of brevity.

~? 0'1"""•~~--iii!Jj'·'~;~~~-·!i.k~~~H'.,....t:~{lt~t~~P'l-:!K!~a~!t"~.!=!i"t'1..~·:-r..:t.bLt.l'':~.n-~.:-.<t:'l-·.~~~~.1~·1~SIWd~k;1c·:-,.-.~ .. ~f',!<!~::~!'-'~~~"t:.,~~,._~M,!~,.,:~~::.!ft~(.;:-_~_~.::·.~.J~~.e-~ut.U:~::r.e1±..;~-;.<~·,~·:;_--l)~,~.,_..,.~;.,~..::..>".:~~-;:;-~· ·

I

19

42. The contents of the reply to Ground D are admitted,

hence, no reply is necessary.

43. The contents of the reply to Ground E are erroneous and

hence denied.

44. The contents of the reply to Ground F to Hare admitted,

hence, no reply is necessary.

45. The contents of the reply to Ground I are irrelevant, and it

is reiterated that the existing format of FORM-27 is grossly

insufficient to serve the purpose of patent working norms

under the Patents Act.

46. The contents of the reply to Ground J are erroneous and

hence denied. The Preliminary· Submissions at Paragraph

Nos. 5(c), 6 and 7 are reiterated and are not repeated for

the sake of brevity.

47. The contents of the reply to Ground K are admitted,

hence, no reply IS necessary. The corresponding

submissions made in the Writ Petition are reiterated and

not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

48. The contents of the reply to Ground L are wrong and

denied. The corresponding submissions made in the Writ

Petition are reiterated and not repeated herein for the sake

of brevity.

49. The contents of the reply to Ground M are admitted,

hence, no reply is necessary. The corresponding

submissions made in the Writ Petition are reiterated and

not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

t-3 f;'-,. '.

r-~~~~·~~

I ~ «)3 20

~ ~~


Paragraph Nos. 66 to 68 are matters of record, hence, no

reply is necessary. The corresponding submissions made

in the Writ Petition are reiterated and not repeated herein

for the sake of brevity.

51. The contents of the Prayer to the Counter Affidavit are

erroneous and therefore denied.

Date : 21.03.2016 Place: New Delhi

FILED BY:

N. SAIVINOD Advocate for the Petitioner D-131, Panchsheel Enclave,

New Delhi -110 017

[.·.;

~···

. . · ·'

IN THE HIGH COl,JRT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRA ORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION)

WRIT'PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5590 OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION ' .


VERSUS


AFFIDAVIT

I, Shamnad Basheer, son of Mr. M. M. Basheer, aged about 39

years, resident of Nishad Kulath:upuzha, Quilon District, Kerala- 691

310, having office at IDIA Charitable Trust, C/o. Spire, No. 45, 2nd

Floor, Jubilee Building, Museum Road, Bangalore- 560 025, presently

at New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

1. That I am the Petitioner in the above mentioned matter and am

fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, and

as such am competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the contents of accompanying Rejoinder in Reply to the

Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have been

drafted by my counsel as per my instructions. I have read and

understood the contents of the same and the same are true and

correct to the best of my knowledge and based upon the official

records. The contents relating to legal submissions are based on

the legal advice received and believed to be true and correct.

3. The Annexures annexed with the accompanying Rejoinder are -----e copies of their respective originals .

·-----~- :-··.-;----·---- ----- -----------.~------ ·-

NOTARY. OELHl-R-15780 9899446209 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ~ SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

~~g~~~ru~~i~~:C~~~~~!!j) ........ .

(' • e b. ~I' CERTIFIED THAT THE CONTENTS EXPLAINED TO THE DEPONENT EXECUTANT WHO fS SEEMED PERFECT TO UNDERSTAND &AF'FIRMED DEP:li5SED B E MEAT DELHI ON.

( 9 'ID~TJ ~·~·~·Jk;;~ ......... IN NT~ED.BY ~ SIGNE~N MY PRESENCE H1/i

, . -, .. , - 4hA./CUi~-~11'l f"··4ir-~,~ !: WfJ .. S · .. :: , •t, .. 1::.\ ot.SE.~Cl"''

· ~ . \~lr\tP" s ....... ~"' RAJENDRA KUMAR, NOTARY, Reg No. 5780 F No.·5(486) EMPOWERED TO ADMINISTER THE OATH SECTION 139 OF CPC 1908 L SECTION 297 OF CRPC 1973 DELHI HIGH COURT RULES 1967 PART·6, CHAPTER XVIII-227 EVIDENCE BY AFFIDAVIT BEFORE NOTARY SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013 ORDER IX-7

.··_.· ~~

2/1/2016 https://i pi ndiaonl i ne.gov. i n/patentsearch/Gr antedSearch/ReportProjectPopU p.aspx?Appi_N o= fbfqk89YKfj6D69(3wzU U ks36cqxh5QcsrGe+ 3sh3iko% ...

i·~ .• J'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDIA

PATENTS I OESIGNS I TRAOE MARKS GEO(ii\APHitALINOICATIONS

Controller General of Patents,Designs and Trademarks """""'""'"" Department of lndustnal Policy and Promotion

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Ministry of Commerce and Industry

Details Application Number: IN/PCT/2001/00799/MUM

l~:~::::~.~::~.~:.'!w~.:EJ l.~~.::::.~--~.:.:.w:.::~:~:.'.:~2J

CARBOXY ARYL 1312008 ; 28/0312008 215758 0310312008 SUBSTITUTED DIPHENYL 0510712001

UREAS

l nf Pi)!~'Pl CL~:.,:,_tn~

'\·umiJt~r

C07D 211178

09/275,266

09/425,228 -----.--·-·-··-··

60/115,877

PCTIUS00/00648

25/02/1999

02/10/_1999

13/01/1999

0111212000

U.S.A.

U.S.A.

U.S.A.

Applicant Details

Inventor Details

Abstract Text

\amc OfPalcncc~

BAYER CORPORATION

r-----------------------r---------------------------~

BEREND RIEDL

JACQUES DUMAS

I 1 I 2

101 TANGLEWOOD DRIVE.

#203, 5-7 CHITOSE-CHO,

210 SADDLE HILL DRIVE.

65 WJNTERHILL ROAD.

134 PARK AVENUE,

113 EDGECOMB STREET.

11 WALL STREET,

1187 MT. CARMEL AVENUE,

A compound selected from the group consisting of the 4-chloro-3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl ureas: N-(4-chloro-3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyi)-N'-(3-(2-carbamoyl-4- pyridyloxy)phenyl)urea. N-(4-chloro-3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyi)-N'-(3-(2-(N-methylcarbamoyl)-4- pyridyloxy)phenyl)urea, N-(4-chloro-3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyi)-N'-(4-(2-carbamoyl)-4- pyridyloxy) phenyl)urea. N-(4-chloro-3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyi)-N'-(4-(2-(N-methylcarbamoyl)-4- pyridyloxy)phenyl)urea and N-(4-chloro-3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyi)-N'-(2-chloro-4-(2-N- methylcarbamoyl)(4-pyridyloxy)phenyl)urea, the 4-bromo-3(trifluoromethyl)phenyl ureas: N-(4-bromo-3-(trifluoromethyl)pheny)-N'-(3-(2-(N-methylcarbamoyl)-4-pyridyloxy)phenyl)urea, N-(4-bromo-3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyi)-N'-(4-(2-(N-methylcarbamoyl)-4-pyridyloxy)phenyl)urea, N-(4-bromo-3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyi)-N'-(3-(2-(N-methylcarbamoyl)-4- pyridylthio) phenyl)urea, N-(4-bromo-3-(trifiuoromethyl)phenyi)-N'-(2-chloro-4-2-(N- methylcarbamoyl)(4-pyridyloxy))phenyl)urea, and N-(4-bromo-3-(trifluoromethyl))phenyi)-N'-(3-chloro-4-2-(N- methyl carbamoyl) (4-pyridyloxy)phenyl)urea. the 2-methoxy-4-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl ureas: N-(2-methoxy-4-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)phenyi)-N'-(4-2-(N-methylcarbamoyl)-4-pyridylo3cy)phenyl)urea. N-(2-methoxy-4-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)phenyi)-N'-(2-chloro-4-(2-(N-methylcarbamoyl)(4-pyridyloxy))phenyl)urea. or a phanmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.

C:::: .... : .. · .. ·~:·:J l· •:·.•- .. . :..! l ....

https://ipindiaonline.gov.in/patentsearch/GrantedSearch!ReportProjectPopUp.aspx?Appi_No=fbfqk89YKfj6D69GwzUUks36cqxh50csrGe+3sh3iko%3d&P... 1/1

L (

'· ,_._.

~ §;i~:~

II :?1~ I t )fl~ ~~? &'

I fl

I ,,m

I Y.>~ ~ ~~~~ e~

~y~:<Q

1 ,

Jci~

2/1/2016 Display Uploaded PDF Document

PDF Document 2157 5 &-CQrresJ;londence-12Q215 .pdf

-IN-PCT -200 1-00799-MUM -CORRESPONDE~CE(4-,8-20 1 O).pdf in-pct-20Q1-00799-mum-abstract(grantecO-C3-3-2008).J?df

-- --IJ'i-PCT-200 1-0Q799-MUM--AFFIDA VIT(6-2-20 13).Qdf

IN-PCT-2001-Q0799-MUM-APPLICATION FOR TERMINATION OF COMPULSORY I I . , I

~ LICENSE(29-1 0-20 12).udf

. . ' .

in-}2Ct-200 1-00799-n.;mm-Cat'l:Celled £2ages(27 -09-2007~.Qdf

in-}2ct-200 1-00799-mum-claims(complete)-(5:-7-200 1 ).udf

in-pct-2001-00799-mum-claims(granted)-J27-Q9-_2~Q?).do~ _____________ in-pc~-200 1-00799-mum-claims(granted)-(27 -09-2007).Qdf

---~------·· --·

in-}2ct-200 1-00799-mum-claims(granted)-(3-3-2008).Qdf - --

IN-PCT-2001-00799-MUM-COMPULSORY LICENSE APPLICATION(29-7-2011).J2df t • •

L~£3NICT-2001-00799-MUM-COMPULSORY LICENSE(6-2-2013).pdf ~ .. ~~-~: ·' ~--)?;, K ·::;;:'tT -200 1-00799-MUM-CORREAPONDENCE( 13-11-2009).12df ...;..·,<····· . in-12ct-2001-00799-mum-corres12ondence I (29-7-2008).J2df -'---=-· • . ·- - . --------------··--------------------··----------

in-,llct-200 1-00799-mum-correspondence 2( 1 0-7-2008).pdf ~- --- .. ... . . ·- .... ...... . ---------·····-··-···········-·--·-·--------·-··----------···-······-··--·-----·

IN-PCT -200 1-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE(03- I 1-2009).pdf

IN-PCT-2001-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCEC09-Il-2009).12df ---

IN-PCT-2001-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE( 10-4-20 I3).pdf

IN-PCT-2001-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE(l I-11-2009).pdf

IN-PCT -200 1-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE( I I,-6-20 I O).pdf

IN-PCT-200 1-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE( 12-7-201 O).Qdf . - - ~

IN-PCT -200 1-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE( 13- I 0-2014 ).Qdf IN-PCT-2001-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE(I3-ll-2009}.gdf

IN-PCT-200 1-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE( 14-5-201 O).Qdf IN-PCT-200 1-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE( 16-6-201 O).Qdf

'

IN-PCT-2001-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE(l7-11-2002).Qdf

IN-PCT-200 1-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE( 18-9-20 I 2).gdf IN-PCT-200 1-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENC£(2-2-20 1 O}.pdf b·'" ---!;':i:',£CT -200 1-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE(23-8-20 11 ).gdf

--v····t:• ~i;({l:PCT-2001-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE(26-11-2002).Qdf ~-···"

IN-PCT-200 1-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE(26-5-20 1 O).gdf ---IN-PCT-200 1-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE(28-l1-20 11 ).pdf

IN-PCT-2001-00799-MUM-CORRESPO~DE~C-~(29-1~-20_99)~1?df -- ---------

IN-PCT-2001-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE(?.9-3-_?_010).J2d!' -·------------------

IN-PCT -200 1-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE(30-9-20 11 ).Qdf

IN-PCT-2001-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE(3-1 I-2010).Qdf

IN-PCT-2001-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE( 4-6-201 O).pdf

IN-PCT-2001-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE(5-11-2009).gdf

IN-PCT-2001..;00799-MUM-CORRESPONDE~CE(6-2-2~I2).pdf ----------------------

IN-PCT -200 1-00799-M~M-CORRESP9NDENCE(6.~2-2Q 1_~)Jldf ···---~~---------------------------

IN-PCT-2001-00799-MUM--CORRESPONDENCE(6-2-2013).pdf

IN-PCT-200 1-00799-MUM -CORRESPOND ;EN CE-(8-6-2009).pdf

IN-PCT-2001"00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE(8-6-2010).pdf

IN-PCT-2001-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE(9-6-2010).pdf

https:/lipindiaonline.gov.in/patentsearch/GrantedSearchlviewdoc.aspx?id=lbf~kB9YKfj6D69GwzUUks36cqxh5QcsrGe+3sh3iko=&loc=vsnutRQWHdTHa1... 1/3

~ ,,, t:l5

211/2016 Display Uploaded PDF Document

https://ipindiaonline.gov.in/patentsearch/GrantedSearch/viewdoc.aspx?id=fbfqk89YKfj6069GwzUUks36cqxh5QcsrGe+3sh3iko=&loc=vsnutRQWHdTHa1... 213

21112016 Display Uploaded PDF Document

IN-PCT-2001-00799-MUM-PQST GRANT OPPOSI~IONC2-6-20,09) . .Qdf -----------1

IN-P<;T -200 1-0079~-¥UM-POST GRA~_I_Q?._R_<?.§!T_!_ON(31-Q&-2009).pdf __ _ IN-PCT -2p0 1-00799-MUM-POST GRANT OPPOSTION-C30-03-2009).pdf

IN-PCT -200 1-00799-MUM-POST -GRANT OPPOSITION(3-ll-2009).pdf

in,-pyt-200 1-90799-mum-pmyer of authority( 10-08-200 1 )).pdf

it:J.-l,)Ct-200 1-00799-mum-power of authority(27-09-20Q7)).pdf I in-pc~~-~OO_l-~0_7~9~_mu_m_-spec.i_fi_c_ation(a~~~~~~l:E7:2.:~Q2D·P_?L ____________________________________ __j

https:llipindiaonli ne.gov .i nlpatentsearch/GrantedSearchlviewdoc.aspx?id=fufqk89YKfj6D69GwzU Uks36cqxh5QcsrGe+ 3sh3iko=&loc=vsnutRQWHdTH a1... 313

~--

i'

'· '

Date post:	24-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vannguyet
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

N.D.O.H 28.03 - spicyip.com · IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI ... contents of the Writ Petition and the...

Documents