Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

58. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff however, referred to the patent specification to contend that the ratio of the antigens used had been set out therein which is as under:

The said antigens can be mixed taking Core: 40-60 nannogram NS3: 100-150 nannogram NS4: 150-200 nannogram NS5: 150-200 nannogram

59. Insofar as the contention of defendant no 2 that it is manufacturing its product based on technology obtained from AccuDx is concerned, it is the submission of the plaintiff that the device of AccuDx uses only two antigens being NS3 and Core while the plaintiff's device employs 4 antigens. It was also alleged by the plaintiff that the argument was an afterthought and the technology transfer agreement had not been placed on record at the first instance and was placed on record only with the replication to the written statement to the counter claim. Moreover the said agreement relates to ELISA tests and the manner in which dots appear in defendant No. 2's device is different from the device of AccuDx. The clause in the said technology transfer agreement on its 'Scope' mentions the 'production protocol of HCV Elisa Tests'. It was submitted without prejudice that the defendant can follow the technology of AccuDx which is different from the product of the plaintiff.

89. The contention of the plaintiff in respect of the 'Murex Anti-HCV' Test that the same is an ELISA test and is an immunoabsorbent linked assay while the plaintiff's test is not an enzyme linked immunoassay. Learned Counsel submitted that the UBI HCV is also an enzyme linked immunoabsorbent assay. As regards the 'HepatIT is C virus encoded antigen (Ortho Elisa) ', it was contended that the same is also an Elisa test and is also an enzyme linked immunoabsorbent assay. In the Elisa test the substrate and conjugate are to be used to give the desired results and the test takes two hours to be completed.

94. The 'HepatIT is C Virus Encoded Antigen Ortho ELISA Test System with Enhanced Sample Added Verification' relied on by defendant No. 2 is an ELISA test as the name itself indicates and uses c22-3, c20G and NS5 antigens and thus the said product cannot be said to anticipate the plaintiff's product which is a rapid flow through test using Core, NS3, NS4, and NS5 antigens.

95. The INNOTEST HCV AbIV which is a 4th generation test is an ELISA test and not a rapid test as is the case with the plaintiff's device.

96. Thus, the product of the plaintiff is different from the products being manufactured by third parties referred to being Murex Anti-HCV, the UBI-HCV test, INNOTEST HCV AbIV and HepatIT is C Virus Encoded Antigen Ortho ELISA Test which contain different components from that of the plaintiffs product and are Elisa tests and cannot be said to be anticipated by the said products. Mosaicing

97. The plaintiff has averred that the attempt by defendant No. 2 by citing a number of citations constitutes mosaicing. In this behalf a reference was made to Terrell on Patents (sixteenth Ed., 2006) wherein it has been observed with regard to mosaicing that The mosaicing of individual documents or prior uses is not permissible, unless it can be shown that the skilled person, confronted with a particular citation, would turn to some other citation to supplement the information from the first.