Glochem Vs Cadila

‡ Hyderabad-based pharmaceutical company Glochem Industries filed a pre-grant opposition to Cadila's Patent Application Number 413/MUM/2003A under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, alleging that the invention was not novel and was covered under prior art, and did not pass the test of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act.

‡ Petitioner's claims (Glochem)
The invention related to Clopidogrel besylate, a salt of Clopidogrel.
± Already been patented by Sanofi Aventis through its Patent Numbers 4529596 and 4847265. ± Glochem further alleged that on the date of the invention, the therapeutic efficacies of Clopidogrel and Clopidogrel bisulfate (Plavix) in treating heart ailments were well known.

After hearing both parties at length, the assistant controller of patents ruled in favour of Cadila.

Contd
‡ Glochem objected to the assistant controller's order and filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging misconstruction and misapplication of the law in the context of Section 3(d) read with Section 25(1). ‡ Glochemmade the following objections:
± Cadila had failed to produce any legal or admissible evidence of its claim to the alleged invention; ± Cadila had not shown that the invention in respect of which the patent applied resulted in the enhancement of the known therapeutic efficacy as prescribed under Section 3(d); and ± The assistant controller had failed to examine the above issues and had based its objection on the misconstruction and misapplication of Section 3(d).

Contd
Respondent's grounds (Cadila) ‡ Cadila, on the other hand, stated that the assistant controller's grant of the patent was correct, having taken all relevant matters into account. ‡ Cadila objected to the writ petition on the grounds that the Bombay High Court cannot sit in appeal over an assistant controller decision on technical issues. ‡ Cadila submitted that the writ petition was not good in law because Glochem had had efficacious and fair opportunity to pursue its objections by way of:
± filing a post-grant opposition under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act; ± seeking suo moto (on its own motion) revocation of the patent under Section 64 of the act; or ± filing a counterclaim for revocation or invalidation of the patent in a suit which may be filed by the patentee under Section 104 of the act.

Cadila further clarified that when the patent application was made in 2003 the present Section 3(d) did not exist.

Contd
Judgment ‡ After considering the rival submissions and answering Cadila's objection over the competency of the court, the Bombay High Court held that: ‡ "Although the Petitioners may have remedy of post grant opposition or of seekingsuo moto revocation as well as filing of a counter claim as is suggested by the Respondents, that by itself can be no basis to non-suit the Petitioners, if the Petitioners were right in their grievance that the authority has committed manifest or jurisdictional error while considering the representation by way of opposition or for that matter decided the objections on palpable misreading and misapplication of the relevant provisions of law."

Contd
‡ The Ahmedabad-based Cadila Healthcare may approach the Supreme Court seeking interpretation of the controversial Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act. The company has lost its case against the Hyderabad-based Glochem Industries Ltd to retain patent protection for its antiplatelet drug, clopidogrel besylate,

Slimona (Rimonabant)
‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ Anti Obesity drug. Invented by French drug major Sanofi Aventis Launched in India on Dec 08 Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) or DCGI has asked the Health ministry to ban the drug immediately ‡ Banned on Dec 09. ‡ Reason for ban -> Causes suicidal tendencies in consumers.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful