2013 (5) TMI 141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eferring to the parties as 'Roche' and 'Cipla'. 2. With respect to a patent bearing No.196774 'Roche' sued 'Cipla' alleging infringement of the patent. Apart from damages, decree for permanent injunction was prayed for. 3. By way of a counter claim filed by 'Cipla' it was prayed that patent granted in favour of 'Roche' be revoked. On merits it was claimed by 'Cipla' that it was not infringing the patent granted to 'Roche' vide No.196774. 4. Patent in favour of ´Roche' pertains to a Hydrochloride drug used in treatment of cancer, which we may call 'Polymer A'. It so happened that 'Roche' had applied for another patent pertaining to another Hydrochloride polymer, which we may call 'Polymer B' stating that it was distinctively d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s between 'Roche' and 'Cipla'; notwithstanding 'Cipla' having made good the point with respect to the patent in question of 'Roche' having filed various applications in various jurisdictions abroad including India which were not disclosed to the Controller of Patents, the learned Single Judge declined to revoke the patent in favour of 'Roche' granted by the Controller of Patents. 9. With respect to the claim of injunction by 'Roche' the learned Single Judge has held that the drug manufactured by ´Cipla' does not violate the Patent No.196774 and since the claim for grant of patent in the second polymer 'B' stood rejected by the Controller of Patents, the learned Single Judge has held that the question of patent violation with respec....