Page 40 - A&A Patents&Design Rewind-2016

VIPRO LIFESCIENCES PROHIBITED FROM

COMMENCING MARKETING OF VARDENAFIL
The Plaintiff, Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh
sued the Defendant, Vipro Lifesciences, the effect that they have not commenced marketing
for infringement of its patent covering the of the infringing goods. The Plaintiff agreed to
not press for damages if the Defendant furnished

drug Vardenafil. At the time of institution of the the name of the manufacturer and the quantities

suit, while the Defendant had not started marketing exported of the infringing product. The suit was

the product in India, some exports of the infringing decreed in favour of the Plaintiff with further

product had been made. The Plaintiff obtained a directions that subject to furnishing of information

temporary injunction order against the Defendant regarding exports by the Defendant to the Plaintiff,

until the next date of hearing and the Defendant the Plaintiff shall not press for damages or for

was prohibited from commencing marketing of accounts against the Defendant.

Vardenafil or Vardenafil hydrochloride in the Indian

market. The decision can be accessed at:-

http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.

Subsequently, the Defendant gave an undertaking to asp?pn=150860&yr=2016

SECTION 24(5) OF THE PROTECTION OF PLANT
VARIETIES AND FARMERS’ RIGHTS ACT, 2001,
DECLARED VOID

Section 24(5) of the Protection of Plant against any abusive act committed by any third party
Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, has during the period between filing of application for
been declared void by the Delhi High Court. registration and decision taken by the Authority on such
Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd., Nuziveedu Seeds (P) application.”
Ltd. and Kaveri Seed Company Ltd. challenged the
vires of Section 24(5) of the Protection of Plant The Petitioners challenged this section on various
Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Act in a writ petition grounds including:-
before the Delhi High Court. The writ was allowed
by the Delhi High Court vide its order dated 2nd 1. The provision does not envisage any
December 2016. compliance with principles of natural justice
when such orders are issued;
Section 24(5) of the Protection of Plant Varieties and
Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, empowers the Registrar 2. The provision gives the power to issue
of Plant Varieties to issue directions to protect interim directions even before the concerned
the interests of a breeder against any abusive act breeder’s application for registration has been
during the period between filing of application for accepted and any rights have accrued;
registration and decision taken by the Authority
on such application. The said provision reads as 3. The provision does not provide any details of
follows: “(5) The Registrar shall have power to issue the orders that can be issued by the Registrar,
such directions to protect the interests of a breeder such as, the conditions subject to which they

40 | Patents & Design