Introduction:

The Delhi High Court, in the case between Novartis AG and Natco Pharma Limited & Anr., examined the role of pre-grant opponents under the Patents Act, 1970, emphasizing their contribution to the holistic examination of patent applications without the right to intervene in the examination process. The appeal arose from a single-judge order favoring Natco Pharma in pre-grant opposition proceedings against Novartis AG’s patent application.

Arguments from Both Sides:

Novartis AG’s counsel, represented by Mr. Hemant Singh, Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, Mr. Siddhant Sharma, Mr. Abhay Tandon, and Ms. Garima Mehta, contended against Natco Pharma’s plea seeking cross-examination of witnesses. The single judge allowed Natco to file rebuttal affidavits but was challenged by Novartis.

Natco Pharma, represented by Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. Guruswamy Nataraj, Mr. Shashikant Yadav, Mr. Rahul Bhujbal, and Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, sought cross-examination and filed rebuttal affidavits against Novartis’ expert testimonies.

Court’s Judgement:

The division bench, comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma, clarified that the pre-grant opposition aids but doesn’t entitle opponents to intervene in the examination process. It stressed the independence of the examination and opposition processes, highlighting the Controller’s duty to autonomously assess patent applications.

Rejecting an opposition doesn’t bind the Controller to grant the patent. The court emphasized the Controller’s separate obligation to evaluate the application and ensure its compliance with statutory requirements. It underscored the necessity of maintaining the distinction between examination and opposition processes to uphold their sanctity and efficacy.

The ruling set aside the single judge’s decision but preserved the right of interested parties to object to patent grants. It refrained from ruling on the patent’s merits, keeping all contentions open.