Novo Nordisk AS Vs Union of India and Ors

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 07.07.2022
CASE NO: W.P.(C)-IPD 19/2022
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Judge Prathiba M Singh
CASE TITLE: Novo Nordisk AS Vs Union of India and Ors

Brief Note on the case: 1.The writ petition has been filed against order dated 29th June 2022 passed by the ld. Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs on the presentation of the petitioner dated 13.05.2022, which presentation was made by the Petitioner in view of liberty granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C)-IPD 14/2022. Para 1 and 2.

2.The subject matter Patent was granted on 4th October, 2013 being
IN 257402 titled “PROPYLENE GLYCOL-CONTAINING PEPTIDE
FORMULATIONS against which 4 post grant notice of oppositions have been filed. Para 4-6.

3. After completion of pleadings, the Opposition of Board given first recommendation on 21.08.2019 in the notice of opposition filed by USV Pvt. Ltd. and the Patentee filed application to seek cross examination of Opponent witness. However the Opponent withdrew affidavit of its witness. Para 5, 7.

4.Seond Opinion dated 16.02.2022 of the Board was issued in another opposition filed by SUN PHARMACEUITICALS INDUSTRIES of which the patentee was not satisfied. Accordingly the subject matter representation dated 13.05.2019 was filed , seeking revision of the Opposition Board. Para 8, 10

5. The controller of Board passed the order dated 03.06.2022 where by in one of the Opposition, it was ordered that the representation dated 13.05.2022 would be decided while the another opposition was ordered to proceed further for hearing. Being aggrieved of the same the same the instant petition was filed. Para 11-12.

6.The court observed that recommendation of Board are not binding in nature. Para 20.

7.In post grant opposition proceeding, the parties can not be allowed to filed affidavits and documents repeated times. Past grant Opposition is extremely time sensitive. Para 21,23.

8.The Court observed that names of all the members of the Board should appear in the recommendation along with their respective signatures. Para 27

9.The controller of Patent was directed to deal with all the objections of the Patentee at the time of final hearing. Para 34,35

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539