MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD vs THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 20th March, 2025 I.A. 7198/2025 and REVIEW PET. 151/2025 In + C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 38/2022 MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. G. Nataraj, Mr. Rahul Bhujbal, Mr. Yash Raj & Mr. Jegadheesh R., Advocates. versus THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Barathi, SPC for R-1. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Arpita Sawhney, Ms. Meenal Khurana, Ms. Pallavi Kiran, Mr. Arun Kumar Jana, Mr. Priyansh Sharma, Ms. Pratiksha Varshney, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral) REVIEW PET. 151/2025 1. This review petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2/ review petitioner, seeking review of the judgment dated 15th January, 2025 passed by this Court. 2. The first ground for seeking review is that the arguments were addressed by the respondent no. 2 only in respect of I.A. No. 7635/2024 and not I.A. No. 46685/2024. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 38/2022 Page 1 of 9 Signing Date:25.03.2025 22:23:13 3. The aforesaid contention is disputed by Mr. Nataraj, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 4. For the reasons set out hereinafter, I am not in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the review petitioner/ respondent no. 2. 5. The main contention of the review petitioner in I.A. No. 46685/2024 was that since the petitioner has raised a ground of invalidity in the Himachal suit, the same will be adjudicated in the said suit and hence, the petitioner cannot file a revocation petition on the same grounds. This has been captured in the paragraph 13 of the judgment-under-review, which has been set out below: “13. Subsequently, on 25