CIPLA VS. NOVARTIS

Prayer in W.P.No.24759/2006: Writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue awrit of declaration declaring that section 3(d) of thePatents Act, 1970 as substituted by the Patents (Amendment)Act, 2005 (Act 15/2005) is non-complaint with the TRIPSAgreement and / or is unconstitutional being vague,arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution ofIndia and consequentially to direct the second respondent toallow the Patent Application bearing No.1602/MAS/98 filed bythe petitioner. Prayer in W.P.No.24760/2006: Writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue awrit of declaration declaring that section 3(d) of thePatents Act, 1970 as substituted by the Patents (Amendment)Act, 2005 (Act 15/2005) is non-complaint with the TRIPSAgreement and / or is unconstitutional being vague,arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of

COMMON ORDER

The writ petitioner in both the writ petitions is oneand the same. In the first writ petition, Novartis – aforeign company represented by it’s Indian Power of Attorneyholder, is the writ petitioner. In the second writpetition, Novartis India represented by it’s power agent isthe writ petitioner. The respondents in both the writpetitions are one and the same. The prayer in both the writpetitions is one and the same namely, for a declaration thatsection 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, amended by Patents(Amendment) Act 15/2005, is unconstitutional. However, inthe first writ petition there was an additional prayer inaddition to the relief asked for. The additional prayer wasto direct the second respondent in that writ petitionnamely, the Controller General of Patents and Designs, toallow the patent application bearing No.1602/NAS/98 filed