Delhi High Court - Orders
Novo Nordisk A/S vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 2021
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C)-IPD 22/2021 & CM 8/2021
NOVO NORDISK A/S ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari,
Ms. Deepa Tiku Kachroo,
Mr. Amrish Tiwari, Ms. Kavita
Arora, Mr. Saksham Garg and
Mr. Abhishek Jain, Advocates for
R-4.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with
Mr. Waize Ali Noor and Mr. Taha
Yasin, Advocates for R-1 to 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 01.09.2021
1. The Petitioner is the patentee of Patent No. IN 257402. Respondent No. 4 (USV Private Limited) has initiated post-grant opposition proceedings against such patent under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act, 1970 [hereinafter, 'the Act']. In the said proceedings, Respondent No. 4 has filed evidence in reply by way of affidavit under Rule 59, and affidavit of expert under Rule 60 of the Patents Rules, 2003.
2. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 77(1) r/w 79 of the Act, before Respondent No. 3 (Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs) on 30th August 2019, and again on 25th October 2019, seeking cross-examination of Respondent No. 4's witnesses, namely: Dr. Ganga Srinivasan, Mr. R. Sukumar and Dr. Chetan Doshi. On 21st February, 2021, Petitioner sent a reminder to Respondent No. 3 in this regard. The same remains undecided till date.
3. In the circumstances noted above, the Petitioner has approached this court seeking following reliefs:
"a) A writ of mandamus and/or any other writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities (No. 1 through No. 3) to decide and adjudicate upon the Petitions under Section 77(1) and 79 of the Act of Petitioner seeking cross-examination of Respondent No. 4's witnesses in the pending post-grant opposition against Petitioner's patent being IN 257402,
b) And pass such further orders or issue any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
4. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 3, states that the Court may pass appropriate orders for fixing the schedule of cross examination of the witnesses.
5. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the Petitioner states that he would conclude the cross examination of the witnesses in three hearings.
6. In view of the stand taken by Mr. Kirtiman Singh, it is directed that Respondent No. 2 shall fix the date for cross examination of Respondent No. 4's above-noted witnesses, and intimate the same to all the stakeholders. The cross examination of the witnesses be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from today.
7. The petition along with pending application is disposed of.
SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 1, 2021 nk