IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 1971/2014 BAYER CORPORATION ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.

Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Senior Advocates with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Arpita Sawhney and Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocates Versus UNION OF INDIA and ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Joginder Sukhija, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Anand Grover, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rajeshwari H., Mr. Nihir Samson, Advocates for respondent No.5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN ORDER 26.03.2014 CM Appl. 4118/2014 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 1971/201 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. Accordingly, present application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 1971/2014 and CM Appl. 4117/2014 Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to theCustom Authorities to seize and confiscate the consignments containing Sorafenat manufactured by respondent No.5-Natco Pharma Limited, under the compulsory licence granted by the Patent Office vide order dated 09thMarch, 2012 against the Indian Patent Number 215758. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for petitioner draws this Courts attention to the conditions annexed with the compulsory licence which clearly stipulate that the licence has been granted for sale of the aforesaid drug within the territory of India. He accordingly prays that respondents be restrained from selling Sorafenat abroad. Mr. Anand Grover, learned senior counsel, who appears on advance notice for respondent No.5 states that respondent No.5 has been selling the drug Sorafenat only within the territory of India. He further states that in the event the drug Sorafenat is being sold by certain purchasers or retailers abroad, then respondent No.5 cannot be faulted with. Mr. Anand Grover, learned senior counsel, however, prays that respondent No.5 be permitted to send samples of the active ingredients of the drug Sorafenat abroad for experimentation and generation of clinical trial data and for submission to the Drug Controlling Authorities.

Issue notice.

Mr. Joginder Sukhija, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.

Ms. Rajeshwari H., learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.5.

They pray for and are granted six weeks to file their counter affidavits.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

Keeping in view the categorical conditions on which compulsory licence under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970 has been granted, respondents No.1 to 4 are directed to ensure that no consignment from India containing Sorafenat covered by compulsory licence is exported. The respondent No.5 is given liberty to apply to this Court for permission to export the drug Sorafenat as and when it obtains permission from the Drug Controlling Authority for clinical purposes. Issue notice to remaining unserved respondents by all modes including dasti, returnable for 11th August, 2014. Order dasti. MANMOHAN, J

MARCH 26, 2014