SupremeCourt

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Sugen’s desperate attempt to save its Sunitinib patent

Posted on 1:55 AM by Unknown
Seven years after the enactment of the Patent (Amendment) Act, 2005, India continues to struggle with the absolute basics of its post-grant opposition mechanism. As our readers may already be aware, the Patent Office recently revoked the patent for Sunitinib. 

Although the patent has been identified in the media as a Pfizer patent, Pfizer is only the licensee. The patent is actually owned by Sugen Inc & Pharmacia & Upjohn. In its Form 27 filing with the patent office in the year 2010, Sugen did not disclose the patent was licensed to Pfizer, despite the same being a requirement. Sunitinib is supposed to cover several different types of cancer including some which are resistant to other treatments such as imatinib. Yet, despite these tall claims, Sugen imported only a mere ‘7000 units’ in 2009 into India, a country which loses more than 500,000 people to cancer every year. The relevant Form 27 can be accessed over here (last page). 

After this patent has finally been revoked more than 5 years after it was first granted in the year 2007, Law et. al. reports that the patentees have filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court asking for the decision of the Controller to be set aside on the grounds that they were not given a copy of the report of the Board of Oppositions (This is a three member board that is set up under Section 25 of the Patents Act, to scrutinize the evidence and the arguments of both parties before submitting a report on the same to the Controller). 

This is an absolutely astonishing argument for the patentees to be making after the Controller has already passed her order revoking the patent. ‘Astonishing’ because the patentees should not have even argued the matter until they had a copy of the report of the Opposition Board. Who in their right minds would proceed to the stage of final arguments without being fully prepared with all the relevant information including the most important piece of information – the report of the Opposition Board. Anybody who has read a Controller’s decision in post-grant opposition matter must be aware of the importance of this document. It is a critical document and has a profound impact on the decision of the Controller in a post-grant opposition. 

It isn’t like the patentee was not aware of this report of the Board of Opposition. The Delhi HC’s order, available over here, records in detail how the patentee claims to have applied for a copy of the report of the Board of Opposition via a letter and also through a RTI application. Apparently some genius in the Patent Office turned down the request on the grounds that the same could not be shared because the matter was sub-judice – there is no provision anywhere in the Patent Act or Rules which allows the patent office to withhold the report of the opposition board on the grounds of ‘sub-judice’. 

Faced with this rejection, the patentee should have immediately appealed the order of rejection of the Patent Office to either the IPAB or the High Court depending on which forum would have had jurisdiction. Instead, according to the narration of facts in the order of the Delhi HC, the patentee just went ahead and argued the matter on merits before the Controller and now after losing the post-grant opposition, the patentees are crying foul over the non-disclosure of the report of the opposition board, an act which they never challenged in the first place. 

What is even more utterly baffling is the fact that the Delhi High Court then proceeded to restrain Cipla from releasing its generic drug in the market – this in a writ proceeding against the order of the Controller! Effectively an interim injunction against a private party, through a writ petition! 

Cipla appealed this order almost instantaneously and the Division Bench which delivered its order on the 12th of October, 2012 makes it clear that the interim arrangement suggested by the Single Judge appeared to be only an interim one till the next date of hearing. The implied suggestion being that Cipla was free to market the drug after the 15th of October unless of course the Single Judge extended his initial arrangement. had this to say about the decision of the Single Judge: “In the absence of any prayer for direction to the appellant herein not to take any steps for marketing its drugs, the learned Single Judge should not have granted such an order.” The case has been remanded to the Single Judge, who on the 15th of October, 2012 adjourned the case to the 6th of December, 2012.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in Indian patent litigation, Novartis patent case in India, Patent act | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • IPAB on Payyannur Ring
    [*S lightly long post] Background: The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“ IPAB ”), in its recent order in SubhashJewellery v. Payyan...
  • Guest Post: Intermediary liability in defamation cases - Parle, Mouthshut & Visakha cases to clarify the law
    Chaitanya Ramachandran, who has blogged for us previously over here and here , has sent us this excellent guest post analyzing the extent of...
  • IP Research Assistant position at IIT, Madras
    Feroz Ali Khader, MHRD IP Chair at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras, is looking for research assistants to work on various is...
  • Dorling Kindersley v. Sanguine Technical Publishers
    A recent Delhi High Court order passed on 21 January, 2013  with respect to copyright licensing has come to our notice. An analysis of the j...
  • Call for Papers: IIT Bombay and MHRD jointly announce the 2nd International Conference on Management of Intellectual Property and Strategy
    The readers may be interested to know that the Shailesh J. Mehta School of Management of IIT Bombay is geared up to host, in collaboration w...
  • SpicyIP Tidbit: ALCS August Distribution
    In the UK, the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society is an organization run and owned by writers that collects money due to its mem...
  • Delhi HC rejects the "Hot News" Doctrine: A Summary
    The applicability of the Hot News doctrine was rejected recently in a landmark ruling delivered by Justice Bhat of the Delhi HC. This post i...
  • Satyajit Ray's sketches and copyright controversies
    A copyright row appears to have started between the Satyajit Ray Society and the Delhi Art Gallery, that is organising a countrywide exhibit...
  • Thalappakatti biryani trademark row
    The southern district of Dindigal in Tamil Nadu occupies a special place in the hearts of biryani lovers. In the late 1950s, one Nagasamy N...
  • Karnataka High Court temporarily restrains German company from exploiting trade secrets of Homag India
    Image from here In an interesting judgment dated 10th October, 2012 the Karnataka High Court, sitting at Bangalore, has passed an interim in...

Categories

  • 126 (1)
  • 3(d) (4)
  • 3(f) (1)
  • 3(i) (1)
  • 3(k) (2)
  • Academic Writing (1)
  • access (10)
  • access to food (1)
  • access to health (3)
  • AIA (1)
  • AIDS/HIV (3)
  • Antitrust (2)
  • Bajaj v LML (1)
  • Basmati Row (2)
  • Biological Diversity (5)
  • Biologics (2)
  • biopiracy (4)
  • biotech (7)
  • Bollywood (25)
  • Broadcasters Rights (5)
  • Budget (1)
  • business method patent (2)
  • Call for papers (2)
  • Cipla (2)
  • Comparative Advertising (4)
  • Competition law (8)
  • Compulsory Licensing (27)
  • condonation of delay (1)
  • Conference (4)
  • Constitution (12)
  • Contracts (1)
  • Controller's decisions (8)
  • Copyright (112)
  • Copyright Amendment Bill 2010 (23)
  • copyright board (4)
  • Copyright Exceptions (6)
  • copyright office (1)
  • Copyright Rules (2013) (5)
  • Copyright Societies (9)
  • Counterfeiting (1)
  • creativity (1)
  • Cross Retaliation (1)
  • csir (4)
  • d (1)
  • D.U. Photocopy Case (16)
  • Darjeeling Tea (3)
  • Data Exclusivity (2)
  • Database (1)
  • DCGI (2)
  • decompilation (2)
  • defamation (9)
  • Designs (3)
  • Designs Act (3)
  • Differential Pricing (2)
  • Dilution (1)
  • Disabilities (3)
  • Disability (2)
  • DMCA (2)
  • Doha Declaration (1)
  • Domain Names (2)
  • Draft Policy of the Indian Government (2)
  • DRM (1)
  • Drug Regulation (7)
  • education (12)
  • Enercon (1)
  • Enforcement (1)
  • EU (2)
  • ex parte (2)
  • exhaustion (3)
  • Exhaustion of Rights (2)
  • Fair Dealing (8)
  • Fair Use (11)
  • Federal Circuit (1)
  • Fees (3)
  • FICCI (7)
  • FRAND (2)
  • free trade agreement (3)
  • FTA (3)
  • G.I. Registry (4)
  • gene sequences (3)
  • Generic medicine (4)
  • Geographical Indication (14)
  • Gilead (1)
  • Glenmark (5)
  • Gopika (34)
  • Guest post (11)
  • guidelines (1)
  • GWU-CII (1)
  • Herceptin (1)
  • hot news (3)
  • ICANN (1)
  • incremental innovation (1)
  • independence (1)
  • india (5)
  • Indian Government (1)
  • Indian patent litigation (27)
  • Indian Pharma (35)
  • Injunction (10)
  • Innovation (7)
  • INTA (1)
  • Intermediaries (10)
  • internet (11)
  • Internet Access Providers (IAPs) (5)
  • Internet Censorship (7)
  • IP scholarship (3)
  • IP aware (4)
  • IP Course (3)
  • IP Education (1)
  • IP Policy (11)
  • IP update (4)
  • ip writing competition (1)
  • IPAB (34)
  • ipchair (1)
  • IPO (1)
  • IPRS (5)
  • IT Act (1)
  • Journal (2)
  • judicial independence (3)
  • Jurisdiction (1)
  • Kruttika (4)
  • Legal Education (3)
  • Legal Research Tools (1)
  • Legal Scholarship (2)
  • library (2)
  • Licensing (7)
  • Madhulika (20)
  • mathematical methods (1)
  • Media law (3)
  • medical method (1)
  • Merck (4)
  • mhrd ip chair (1)
  • Microsoft (3)
  • Middle Path (1)
  • Moral Rights (2)
  • Movies (18)
  • musical work (2)
  • nanotechnology (1)
  • Natco (3)
  • natco defamation suit (5)
  • natco vs bayer (4)
  • need for transparency (1)
  • Novartis (8)
  • Novartis patent case in India (11)
  • NPEs (2)
  • nujs (1)
  • NUJS Conference (2)
  • Obituary (1)
  • obviousness (7)
  • Off-Topic (2)
  • online course (4)
  • Open Access (6)
  • Open Source (2)
  • Opposition (3)
  • Parallel Imports (4)
  • Parliament (1)
  • passing off (5)
  • Patent (52)
  • Patent act (10)
  • patent agent (5)
  • patent agent exam (9)
  • patent agent exam qualifications (3)
  • patent infringement (5)
  • Patent Licensing (2)
  • Patent litigation (2)
  • Patent Office (19)
  • patent pool (3)
  • Patent Prosecution (7)
  • Patent rules (2)
  • Patent Strategies (8)
  • Patents (9)
  • pegasus (1)
  • Personality Rights (1)
  • Pfizer (1)
  • Pharma (18)
  • Piracy (5)
  • plagiarism (3)
  • Plant Variety Protection (2)
  • post grant (1)
  • Prashant (2)
  • Preventive Detention (1)
  • Price Control (6)
  • prior publication (1)
  • Privacy (3)
  • Prizes (1)
  • public health (3)
  • Public Interest (4)
  • Publicity Rights (4)
  • Publishing (3)
  • radio (2)
  • Rajiv (18)
  • Rectification Petition (2)
  • Rejection (1)
  • research (3)
  • reverse engineering (2)
  • revocation (4)
  • rip (1)
  • Roche (2)
  • Roche vs Cipla (1)
  • Royalty (2)
  • RTI (2)
  • Scholarship (4)
  • section 16 (1)
  • Section 3(d) (7)
  • section 8 (6)
  • shamnad (11)
  • Shan Kohli (4)
  • Shouvik Kumar Guha (30)
  • Smartphones/Tablets (2)
  • Social Innovation (1)
  • Software (10)
  • software enforcement (3)
  • software patent (3)
  • Special 301 Report (1)
  • Spicy Tidbits (6)
  • spicyip (1)
  • SpicyIP Accolades (1)
  • SpicyIP Announcements (9)
  • SpicyIP Case (1)
  • SpicyIP Cases (3)
  • spicyip commiseration (1)
  • SpicyIP Events (11)
  • SpicyIP Fellowship (5)
  • SpicyIP Guest Series (22)
  • SpicyIP Interview (2)
  • SpicyIP Jobs (4)
  • SpicyIP Jobs/General (2)
  • SpicyIP Review (1)
  • SpicyIP Tidbits (11)
  • SpicyIP Weekly Review (27)
  • Statutory Licensing (1)
  • STI Policy 2013 (4)
  • Sugen (3)
  • Supreme Court of India (5)
  • Swaraj (19)
  • Tarnishment (1)
  • Technology (6)
  • Technology Transfer (5)
  • TKDL (5)
  • TPP (1)
  • trade (4)
  • Trade Secret Protection (1)
  • Trademark (59)
  • Trademark dilution (1)
  • Trademark Registry (9)
  • Traditional Knowledge (7)
  • Transparency (5)
  • treaty (1)
  • trial (1)
  • tribunals (2)
  • TRIPS (11)
  • UK (3)
  • unfair competition (5)
  • UNFCCC (1)
  • Universities Research and Innovation Bill (2)
  • US (1)
  • US Patent Reform (1)
  • US Supreme Court (3)
  • viva (3)
  • WIPO (5)
  • Working a Patent (2)
  • Workshop (4)
  • writ (1)
  • WTO (1)

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (364)
    • ►  September (13)
    • ►  August (41)
    • ►  July (36)
    • ►  June (36)
    • ►  May (32)
    • ►  April (51)
    • ►  March (66)
    • ►  February (40)
    • ►  January (49)
  • ▼  2012 (131)
    • ►  December (29)
    • ►  November (42)
    • ▼  October (50)
      • 5 Reasons Why Course Packs are Legal in India
      • Academia struggles to pay up as Journal prices soar!
      • First sale doctrine under threat in US
      • Guest Post: Ownership and Assignment of Indian Pat...
      • Supreme Court grants BharatMatrimony stay against ...
      • IP in the multiverse: Law of Superheroes
      • Govt. of India follows up on SpicyIP reporting – r...
      • Karnataka High Court temporarily restrains German ...
      • Copyright Aggression vs Educational Access: The "G...
      • Rebutting arguments against multiple copyright soc...
      • Mapping out the future of Indian copyright societies
      • Add a disclaimer says Supreme Court: Bata has happ...
      • Spicy IP Weekly Review (October Week 3)
      • Delhi University Restrained for Alleged Admission ...
      • Appeal to Publishers to Withdraw Suit Filed agains...
      • September 2012: Controller's decisions at the IPO
      • The ‘Register of Owners’ for future copyright soci...
      • Bata sho(o)ed out of Court - No defamation says De...
      • Sugen’s desperate attempt to save its Sunitinib pa...
      • Internet Fraud: Bogus Open Access Journals
      • Guest Post: Bayer-Natco decision TRIPS Compliant?
      • Guest Post: ‘Xerox’ is not Generic.......Yet?!
      • Spicy IP Weekly Review (October Week 2)
      • Roche vs Cipla: A Patent Disappointment?
      • Ever participated in a clinical trial? Perhaps.
      • An anonymous comment in response to the DU Campaig...
      • A test case for India’s new safe harbour provision...
      • Karnataka High Court quashes Controller General’s ...
      • The perils of selective journalism
      • Defensive Patent Licensing: A way out of the Paten...
      • Delhi High Court seeks to break the Myth of 'Break...
      • DU Photocopy Case: Who's Afraid of Copyright?
      • Guest Post: Exide v. Exide: Too much Exidement?
      • Guest Post: The New India Guidelines on Similar Bi...
      • Intellectual Property Rights: Infringement and Rem...
      • More controversy during appointments to IPAB: Delh...
      • SpicyIP Weekly Review (October Week 1)
      • SC on the new drug policy
      • India signs Nagoya protocol ahead of Hyderabad CBD...
      • WIPO defers PPI observer status
      • The need for iron-clad enforcement of Section 8 di...
      • NBA set to prosecute Monsanto’s Indian subsidiary:...
      • Breaking News: Delhi High Court recognizes interna...
      • Breaking news: Cipla succeeds in revoking Pfizer /...
      • TKDL poised to draw first blood before Indian pate...
      • ICANN set to change the topography of the internet
      • Call for Papers: Christ University, Law Journal
      • A Glass and a Half full of Purple Joy: Cadbury win...
      • EBC granted injunction against Lexis Nexis for inf...
      • Novelty of Design: Tarun Sethi v. Vikas Budhiraja
    • ►  September (10)
Powered by Blogger.