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. Rejoinder in reply to Counter Affidavit

filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 1-22
3, along with affidavit

2. ANNEXURE P-19: The list of

documents pertaining to IN215758,
accessible from the official website of 23-26
Respondent No.2

FILED BY:-

New Delhi
Date : 21.03.2016 N. SAIVINOD
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
D-131 (Basement),
Panchsheel Enclave,
New Delhi -110 017
E: nayanisavinod@gmail.com
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

SHAMNAD BASHEER PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS RESPONDENTS

REJOINDER TO THE COUNTER AFFIOA VIT FILED ON

BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NOS. 1 TO 3

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. 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
·.-.
'
2. 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
 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 r.:

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

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

rt:
,,, 3 r~·
:'.'·

to the Petitioner to participate in the consultation process

was futile and thoroughly meaningless.

4. 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]
 (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 f
'
E

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,
 gvo 7

incomprehensible or inaccurate. For the sake of

convenience, the summary of the findings is reproduced
below:

TOTAL
NATURE OF DEFECTS
F-27s %
Undisclosed 79 38.3
QUANTITY
Indeterminate Units 71 58.1
Undisclosed 84. 38.3
VALUE
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 !:

9. 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

10. 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
·, "i 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
 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
•,' .1

.:'·. Patentee is able to meet the reasonable requirement

of public.
,, ·,1

(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
r.

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
oJt~i;
·~··"· 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
 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.

13. 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
 tJ;( 12
i-··

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
l •. ,,

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

,,
i
by repeating the present submissions by way of an;
I

.
additional formal representation. Nevertheless, it IS
I
,'/'

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
i.·:·.·.
committee could then take into account all the
)· '"
 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.
 f1Y t4

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

(
that the steps to conduct public consultation is not meant
to address the deficiencies and discrepancies in patent
'," I 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.

i. REJOINDER TO THE PARAWISE REPLY

:.·I

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.

20. The contents of Counter Affidavit in reply to Paragraph

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
I~
: .• :
Paragraph No. 6 above, the online database containing
patent working information is limited to the years 2012
and 2013, and not before or after.

21. The contents of Counter Affidavit in reply to Paragraph

No. 12 do not require any reply.
 15

22. The contents of Counter Affidavit in reply to Paragraph

No. 13 are denied to the extent that it is inconsistent with
the corresponding submissions made in the Writ Petition.

23. The contents of Counter Affidavit in reply to Paragraph

Nos. 14 to 21 are admitted, and the corresponding
submissions made in the Writ Petition are reiterated.

24. The contents of Counter Affidavit in reply to Paragraph

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.

26. The contents of the Counter Affidavit in reply to

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.

27. The contents of the Counter Affidavit in reply to

Paragraph No. 25 are false and denied to the extent that it
 16

is inconsistent with the corresponding submissions made

in the Writ Petition.

28. The contents of the Counter Affidavit in reply to

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. ;:

,.
i

~·

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.

30. The contents of the Counter Affidavit in reply to

Paragraph No. 29 are false and denied to the extent that it
is inconsistent with the corresponding submissions made
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!_

31. The contents of the Counter Affidavit in reply to

Paragraph No. 30 are false and denied to the extent that it
is inconsistent with the corresponding submissions made
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.
 17

32. The contents of the Counter Affidavit in reply to

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.

33. The contents of the Counter Affidavit in reply to

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.

34. The contents of Counter Affidavit in reply to Paragraph

Nos. 35 to 51 are admitted to the extent it is borne out
from the records, and the corresponding submissions
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. i

i:
l

35. The contents of Counter Affidavit in reply to Paragraph

f.

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.
 18
~I
36. The contents of Counter Affidavit in reply to Paragraph
Nos. 53 to 62 are admitted to the extent it is borne out
from the records, and the corresponding submissions
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.

;,
38. The contents of the Counter Affidavit in reply to
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.e 1 ±..;~-;.<~·,~·:;_--l)~,~.,_..,.~;.,~..::..>".:~~-;:;-~· ·

t-3
f;'-
,.
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.

I
r-~~~~·~~

I ~ «)3 20

~~~
[.·.;

50. The contents of the Counter Affidavit in reply to

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.

FILED BY:

~·
Date : 21.03.2016 N. SAIVINOD
Place: New Delhi 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

' .

SHAMNAD BASHEER PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS RESPONDENTS

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-~,~
, •t, .. 1::.\
!: WfJ. S ·.. ::
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
SECTION 297 OF CRPC 1973
L
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 Uks36cqxh5QcsrGe+ 3sh3iko% ...

L
(

i·~. •J'INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY INDIA
PATENTS I OESIGNS I TRAOE MARKS """""'""'""
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Controller General of Patents,Designs and Trademarks
Department of lndustnal Policy and Promotion
Ministry of Commerce and Industry
GEO(ii\APHitALINOICATIONS

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 PCTIUS00/00648 0111212000

09/275,266 25/02/1999 U.S.A.

09/425,228 02/10/_1999 U.S.A.
-----.--·-·-··-··
60/115,877 13/01/1999 U.S.A.

Applicant Details

\amc OfPalcncc~

BAYER CORPORATION

Inventor Details
r-----------------------r---------------------------~

BEREND RIEDL
JACQUES DUMAS
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,
I1 I2

Abstract Text

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
 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 1O).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
§;i~:~ -'---=-· • . ·- - . --------------··--------------------··----------
in-,llct-200 1-00799-mum-correspondence 2( 10-7-2008).pdf
~- --- .. ... . . ·- ...... . ---------·····-··-···········-·--·-·--------·-··----------···-······-··--·-----·
....

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

II
IN-PCT-2001-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCEC09-Il-2009).12df
---
IN-PCT-2001-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE( 10-4-20 I3).pdf
:?1~ IN-PCT-2001-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE(l I-11-2009).pdf

I 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
t
. ~

IN-PCT -200 1-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE( 13- I 0-2014 ).Qdf

)fl~ IN-PCT-2001-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE(I3-ll-2009}.gdf
~~?
&' IN-PCT-200 1-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE( 14-5-201 O).Qdf

Ifl
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

I
,,m
IN-PCT-200 1-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENC£(2-2-20 1O}.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
--
---

I
~-···"
IN-PCT-200 1-00799-MUM-CORRESPONDENCE(26-5-20 1O).gdf
---
Y.>~ 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
e~ -- ---------
y~:<Q

~,
1
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

Jci~
 ~
,,, 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 ~-

i'

'·
'

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