Yesterday, a interesting news is posted in SpicyIP blog. Bayer challenges ambiguity in statutory language of “prima facie case” of section 87(1). Controller has published Natco’s compulsory license as per section 87(1) as prima facie case made out (published on Aug 12th 2011). Patentee/Person interested can oppose within two months (can be extended U/S 87(2)) from the publication date [Rule 98(1)]. Note: We recall that in imatinib case Novartis has challenged the ambiguity in term “efficacy” of section 3(d).
PS: DIPP recently initiated discussion paper on compulsory license (CL) for deciding whether or not any guidelines required for granting CL and finally concluded that no additional guidelines are required.
Update: Bombay high court disposed of this writ petition by considering that patent infringement proceeding is pending before Delhi High court against the same respondent and asked the petitioner to file the petition before Delhi High court. Time to file opposition for CL is extended till 18-11-2011. (Order)
Update (on 22nd Nov): Bayer has petitioned before Delhi high court on 16th Nov 2011. Delhi high court ordered that the impugned order is mere prima facie view that a case under Section 84(1) of the Patents Act has been established and petitioner is still entitled to contest the said proceedings before the Controller of Patents in the opposition. This petition is dismissed/withdrwan [Order] [Blog post].