Viiv Healthcare Company & Anr. vs. Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs and Others:Court: High Court at Calcutta : Judge: Hon’ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur: Case Number: IA No. GA-COM/1/2025 (Appeal No. IPDPTA/1/2025):Order Date: 14 May 2025
Facts:
ViiV Healthcare filed a patent application in India for HIV medications including Dolutegravir and Cabotegravir. The application faced opposition from NATCO Pharma and other parties. The Patent Office initially rejected the application, citing issues related to inventive step and disclosure. During proceedings, parties settled, with NATCO withdrawing opposition under a settlement agreement, permitting ViiV to manufacture Dolutegravir but not Cabotegravir until 2026. Subsequently, the Deputy Controller issued a rejection order, dismissing ViiV’s patent application, which ViiV challenged in the High Court.
Legal Issues:
- Whether the Deputy Controller correctly interpreted the High Court's order dated 15 July 2024 related to reliance on expert evidence?Whether the rejection order was justified or resulted from misinterpretation or procedural flaws?Whether the consideration of expert evidence was adequately addressed during proceedings?
Reasoning:
The Court found that the Deputy Controller had misinterpreted the order from the High Court, which clarified that only NATCO's objections would be disposed of without considering expert evidence, not that all expert evidence relied upon by ViiV was to be ignored. The Court held that this misinterpretation rendered the rejection order "ex facie perverse" and legally unsustainable.
Additionally, the Court observed that the process was marred by extraordinary delays contravening statutory timelines, further undermining procedural fairness. The Court emphasized the fundamental importance of considering expert evidence in patent law and found that ignoring such evidence violated principles of natural justice and legal standards.
Conclusion:
The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for fresh decision-making by a different Controller or Hearing Officer, who would consider all evidence and objections properly and fairly. The Court underscored the importance of adhering to legal and procedural norms to ensure justice in patent proceedings.
