The Delhi High Court's recent judgment in Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. The Controller of Patents & Anr. has set a crucial precedent for patent law.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals filed a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the validity of Patent No. IN 243301, titled "8-(3-AMINOPIPERIDIN-1-YL)-XANTHINE COMPOUNDS," which includes the compound Linagliptin.
The patentee, Respondent No. 2, sought dismissal of the revocation petition, arguing it was time-barred, as it was filed more than 12 years after the patent's grant on October 5, 2010. They contended that the patent's publication provided constructive notice, and the petition should have been filed within three years, per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
However, the court took a progressive stance, referencing its earlier decision in Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. v. Controller of Patents.
It held that no specific limitation period is prescribed for filing revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act.
This pivotal ruling empowers stakeholders to challenge patent validity whenever necessary, protecting fair competition and public interest.
The Court also clarified that the scope and effect of a revocation petition filed under Section 64 of the Patents Act and the defence of invalidity taken under Section 107 of the Patents Act in an C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 38/2022 Page 12 of 14 infringement suit is entirely different.
Hence, the present revocation petition was maintainable.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court allowed Macleods Pharmaceuticals’ revocation petition to proceed, rejecting the time-bar argument and emphasizing that revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act are not constrained by a specific limitation period.
💡 Key Insight: The judgment paves the way for more flexible and accessible revocation proceedings, fostering innovation and accountability in the pharmaceutical sector.
Comments