Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

36. Learned senior counsel for the defendant has further contended that PW1 K.G. Ananthkrishnan has deposed that suit patent was first filed in India by Merck & Co. Inc. on 6th January, 2004. Thereafter, name of Merck & Co. Inc. was changed to Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation on 3rd November, 2009. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation became a wholly owned subsidiary of Schering Plough Corporation on 3rd November, 2009, by way of the reverse merger. Subsequently, Schering Plough Corporation changed its name to Merck & Co. Inc. on 3rd November, 2009. It is, thus, contended that as per plaintiff no.1 itself Merck & Co. Inc. ceased to have any right in patent from 3rd November, 2009 onwards. On 1st May, 2012 Schering Plough Corporation merged with Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation (patentee) as a result of which all the assets of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation were transferred to Schering Corporation. Only copy of the merger certificate was filed before the patent office. Plaintiffs did not place on record any other document before the Court or the patent office to establish the actual transfer of rights from Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation to Schering Corporation, which is not sufficient to establish transfer of rights in the suit patent. It is further contended that even no document was summoned from the patent office to show that Schering Corporation has changed its name to Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation on 25th February, 2013. As per learned senior counsel, plaintiffs have failed to produce and prove on record necessary documents to establish the complete chain of documents to authenticate the transfer of patent from Merck & Co. Inc. to another so as to conclude, that plaintiff no. 1 became the proprietor of the suit patent. It is further contended that license agreements Ex. PW1/D-3 and Ex. CW2/A/D-1 are suspicious, inasmuch as, the license agreements have not been registered in accordance with law. A letter requesting to take the license agreement on record was filed before the patent office on 20th May, 2013 and pursuant thereof plaintiff no.2 appears to have been recorded as a licensee in the e-Register on 22nd May, 2013. The patent office raised objections vide letter dated 20th June, 2013 stating therein that address of the patentee Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation in the license agreement was inconsistent with the e-Register as well as copy of the license agreement was not filed. Plaintiff no.2 replied to the said objections on 18 th June, 2013, that is, even prior to patent office raising the objections. The subsequent copy of license filed on record by the plaintiff no.2 also suffers from various defects. The patent license was signed on behalf of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation and Merck & Co. Inc. on 17th May, 2013; whereas by MSD International GMBH and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. on 24th May, 2013 and 31st May, 2013 respectively, however, as per e-Register date of the license is 22nd May, 2013. License was executed between four parties, as opposed to two parties, as per the information detailed in the e-Register. No clarity on the ‗beneficial owner' viz Merck International GMBH has been substantiated with adequate documents. Two copies of license agreement bearing different dates of execution, that is, 16th May, 2013 and 31st May, 2013 were placed on the patent office record. The patent license is on a stamp paper of `100/-; whereas value of the assignment for the purpose of stamp has been set out therein as US$1. All this creates a serious doubt about the authenticity of license.