Court rules in favor of 'Cipla' in patent infringement case against 'Roche' despite non-disclosure findings.

The court ruled in favor of 'Cipla' in the case involving alleged patent infringement by 'Roche'. Despite 'Cipla' establishing non-disclosure of information by 'Roche' and the rejection of 'Roche's' claim for a second polymer, the Single Judge declined to revoke the patent. The court emphasized the importance of specialized tribunals and allowed proceedings before the IPAB to continue, highlighting the varying degrees of non-disclosure in patent revocation cases.

---

---

Issues:
1. Alleged patent infringement and permanent injunction sought by 'Roche' against 'Cipla'.
2. Counter claim by 'Cipla' for revocation of the patent granted to 'Roche'.
3. Interpretation of Sections 8 and 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 regarding non-disclosure of information.
4. Decision on the claim of injunction by 'Roche' against 'Cipla'.
5. Consideration of deferring revocation proceedings initiated by a third party before the IPAB.

Analysis:
1. The case involved 'Roche' suing 'Cipla' for patent infringement and seeking a permanent injunction. 'Cipla' counterclaimed for the revocation of the patent granted to 'Roche' on the grounds of non-infringement. The patent in question was related to a Hydrochloride drug used in cancer treatment, referred to as 'Polymer A', with 'Roche' having another patent application for 'Polymer B', which was distinctively different and not granted.

2. 'Cipla' raised a defense under Sections 8 and 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, alleging non-disclosure of information by 'Roche' regarding similar patents sought in other jurisdictions. The Single Judge declined to revoke the patent despite 'Cipla' establishing non-disclosure of relevant information by 'Roche'.

3. The Single Judge ruled that the drug manufactured by 'Cipla' did not violate the patent held by 'Roche', as the claim for the second polymer 'B' had been rejected by the Controller of Patents. The question of patent violation did not arise in this context.

4. The main issue before the court was whether to defer revocation proceedings initiated by a third party before the IPAB concerning the patent granted to 'Roche'. The court noted that specialized tribunals should be allowed to decide matters within their jurisdiction, and there was no specific provision in the Patents Act, 1970, to restrain parties from pursuing remedies before judicial fora.

5. The court decided to recall an interim order requiring the deferral of proceedings before the IPAB, allowing 'Roche' and the third-party applicant to continue their proceedings. The decision highlighted the importance of specialized tribunals and the varying degrees of non-disclosure that different parties may allege in patent revocation cases.

---