Title: Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr. vs The Controller of Patents & Ors.
Decided on: 3rd August, 2023
+ C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2021
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
Introduction
A recent ruling by the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice C Hari Shankar, addressed the question of whether a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act can be considered a “suit” under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The court held that a revocation petition cannot be treated as a suit for the purposes of Section 10 of the CPC.
Facts
The case pertained to a revocation petition (CO (Comm. IPD-PAT) 3/2021) filed by the petitioners challenging a patent held by respondent Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH under various clauses of Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. Respondent Boehringer had also filed a lawsuit (COMS 5/2021) accusing the petitioners of patent infringement based on the same patent. The petitioners argued that the issues in both the revocation petition and the lawsuit were identical.
Counsel J Sai Deepak represented the petitioners, while CGSC Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar represented the respondents.
Analysis
The central issue was whether a revocation petition can be considered a “suit” under Section 10 of the CPC, which deals with the stay of proceedings in a suit. The court examined the provisions of the CPC and observed that Order IV Rule 1(1) of the CPC indirectly defines a “suit” as a plaint presented to a court or its appointed officer.
The court noted that a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act cannot be treated as a suit unless there is a provision deeming it so. It emphasized that the creation of deeming fictions is typically the prerogative of the legislature and cannot be undertaken by the court.
Held
The Delhi High Court held that a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act cannot be considered a suit for the purpose of invoking Section 10 of the CPC. Section 10 does not bring proceedings to a halt; it only stays the trial of a suit. The court clarified that even if Section 10 applies, the court hearing the later suit can still issue interlocutory orders. The court cited previous cases to support its position and concluded that the revocation petition should not be treated as a suit under Section 10 of the CPC.
Furthermore, the court observed that even on merit, a case existed for staying the revocation petition pending the outcome of the suit filed in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
In essence, the Delhi High Court’s ruling clarified that a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act cannot be equated with a suit for the purpose of applying Section 10 of the CPC.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Ankit Kaushik
