glochem vs cadila

8/8/2019 Glochem Vs Cadila

1/6

Glochem Vs CadilaHyderabad-based pharmaceutical company Glochem Industries filed apre-grant opposition to Cadila's Patent Application Number413/MUM/2003A under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, alleging thatthe invention was not novel and was covered under prior art, and didnot pass the test of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act.

Petitioner's claims (Glochem)

T he invention related to Clopidogrel besylate, a salt of Clopidogrel. Already been patented by Sanofi Aventis through its Patent Numbers 4529596

and 4847265. Glochem further alleged that on the date of the invention, the therapeutic

efficacies of Clopidogrel and Clopidogrel bisulfate (Plavix) in treating heartailments were well known.

After hearing both parties at length, the assistant controller of patents

ruled in favour of Cadila.


2/6

ContdGlochem objected to the assistant controller's order and filed

a writ petition before the Bombay High Court under Article226 of the Constitution, alleging misconstruction andmisapplication of the law in the context of Section 3(d) readwith Section 25(1).Glochemmade the following objections:

Cadila had failed to produce any legal or admissible evidence of itsclaim to the alleged invention;

Cadila had not shown that the invention in respect of which the patentapplied resulted in the enhancement of the known therapeuticefficacy as prescribed under Section 3(d); and

The assistant controller had failed to examine the above issues andhad based its objection on the misconstruction and misapplication of Section 3(d).


3/6

ContdR espondent's grounds (Cadila)

Cadila, on the other hand, stated that the assistant controller'sgrant of the patent was correct, having taken all relevant mattersinto account.Cadila objected to the writ petition on the grounds that theBombay High Court cannot sit in appeal over an assistant controllerdecision on technical issues.Cadila submitted that the writ petition was not good in lawbecause Glochem had had efficacious and fair opportunity topursue its objections by way of:

filing a post-grant opposition under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act; seeking suo moto (on its own motion) revocation of the patent under

Section 64 of the act;or

filing a counterclaim for revocation or invalidation of the patent in a suitwhich may be filed by the patentee under Section 104 of the act.

Cadila further clarified that when the patent application was made in2003 the present Section 3(d) did not exist.


4/6

ContdJudgment

After considering the rival submissions and answering Cadila'sobjection over the competency of the court, the Bombay HighCourt held that:" Although the Petitioners may have remedy of post grant

opposition or of seeking suo moto revocation as well as filingof a counter claim as is suggested by the Respondents, that by itself can be no basis to non-suit the Petitioners, if thePetitioners were right in their grievance that the authority hascommitted manifest or jurisdictional error while considering

the representation by way of opposition or for that matter decided the objections on palpable misreading and misapplication of the relevant provisions of law. "


5/6

ContdThe Ahmedabad-based Cadila Healthcare may approach the

Supreme Court seeking interpretation of the controversialSection 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act. The company has lost itscase against the Hyderabad-based Glochem Industries Ltd toretain patent protection for its antiplatelet drug, clopidogrelbesylate,


6/6

Slimona ( R imonabant )Anti Obesity drug.

Invented by French drug major Sanofi AventisLaunched in India on Dec 08Drug Technical Advisory Board (D TAB) or DCGI has askedthe Health ministry to ban the drug immediately

Banned on Dec 09.Reason for ban -> Causes suicidal tendencies in consumers.

glochem vs cadila

Documents