Ericsson had originally signed a licensing deal with Samsung in 2002 for patents related to mobile phone technologies. These technologies involve a variety of critical technology powering mobile communications, including Global System for Mobile communications (GSM), General Packet Radio Service (GPRS), and the high-speed Enhanced Data rates for Global Evolution (EDGE).

These royalty agreements expired in December 2005. Ericsson had negotiated with Samsung but couldn’t reach a new agreement. So considering expenditure on R & D and in interest of the company, Ericsson is accusing Samsung of continued use of its patented technology after a cross licensing agreement expired in December 2005.

Stoplik Services Pvt. Ltd. had filed a patent application for their invention “A process for the preparation of a therapeutic anti-inflammatory and analgesic composition containing Nimesulide for use transdermally” on 14th July, 1998. Panacea Biotech Ltd. had filed an opposition to the grant of patent with the allegation that the applicant had copied the contents of their prior applications.

The succeed grounds mentioned in the notice of opposition filed by Panacea Biotech Ltd. are stipulated under clauses (b), (d), and (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 25 of Indian Patent Law. These grounds in briefly are stated as prior publication, prior public knowledge and lacking inventiveness.

The opponents succeed in the opposition ground clause (b) and (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 25 by establishing the ground of prior publication and prior public knowledge. Panacea Biotech Ltd. stated that the Sri Lankan Patent and Nigerian Patent were published before the date of the impugned Patent Application No. 454/BOM/1998 (183458), which has been ante dated to 4th April 1997.

When claim 1 of the alleged invention is read with claim 20, 21 and 22 of Sri Lanka Patent or Nigerian Patent shows principal claim lacks in novelty. Claim 2 and 3 of the alleged invention also lacks in novelty in view of claim 5 and 7 of Sri Lanka’s and Nigerian Patent. Comparison of the alleged invention 183458 with the Sri Lanka’s Patent 11012 and Nigerian Patent RP 12829 clearly shown that it do not pass the test of the Novelty.

Further Panacea Biotech Ltd. mentioned that Sri Lankan Patent No. 11012 dated on 24th July 1996 was granted on 20th September 1996 while Nigerian Patent Application No. RP 12829 dated on 5th September 1996 was sealed on 3rd March 1997.

The opponents succeed on the ground of obviousness and lack of inventive step. The opponents on this ground also relied upon the publications cited by them on the ground of prior publication. So it was obvious that a man in the art would have no difficulty in carrying out the Applicants invention into practice with the help of cited publications.

After considering statements, evidences and arguments by the parties it was ordered that the grant of Patent on application for Patent No. 183458 shall be refused and the applicants shall pay Rs.17,000 towards the cost as per schedule Annexure.