Background
The Controller of Patents sealed Patent No. 142090 in favour of Novartis AG on 12 November 2018, after dismissing oppositions on 2 August 2018. The patent covers a “dual-acting compound comprising an angiotensin receptor antagonist and an NEP inhibitor”. Several pharmaceutical companies appealed the dismissal of their oppositions.
In 2021 Getz Pharma applied to revoke the patent and obtained an interim order on 5 March 2021. Novartis applied to have that order vacated. Separately, Novartis had an infringement suit pending before the IP Tribunal at Lahore.
Questions before the court
- Whether the Controller should have held back sealing while appeals were pending (section 27 of the Patents Ordinance, 2000).
- Whether the interim restraint should continue, given the balance of convenience, irreparable loss and the time taken to apply.
Decision
The court vacated the interim order of 5 March 2021 and dismissed Getz Pharma’s application. Its observations were tentative: patentability, novelty, delay and the lawfulness of the Controller’s actions were left for the main case. The court also suggested a special bench for IP cases and transfer of other matters to the IP Tribunals.
The court’s reasoning
- Section 27(1) deals with the main patent, and “No express provision of the Patents Law has put a restraint (bar)” on sealing it while other proceedings are pending.
- The proviso to section 27(2), which refers to pending proceedings, applies only to patents of addition. Provisos are read strictly.
- Sealing followed publication, oppositions and hearings, and official acts are presumed to be regular (Article 129(e), Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984).
- An interim order should not decide the main case (Zaman Khan, 1997 SCMR 1508), and there is no automatic stay pending appeal (Ismail Zafar, PLD 1967 Karachi 22). The balance of convenience and irreparable loss favoured Novartis, which had held the patent for years before the interim order.
What this means in practice
Provisions and authorities
Laws and rules
- Patents Ordinance, 2000: sections 7, 16, 21, 27, 39 to 41, 46, 47, 54, 56, 60 and 61
- Patents Rules, 2003
- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: Article 129(e)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXIX, Rule 4
Cases referred to
- Zaman Khan, 1997 SCMR 1508
- Ismail Zafar, PLD 1967 Karachi 22
- Dr. Muhammad Anwar Kurd, 2011 SCMR 1560
- Pfizer, 2002 CLD 120
Source
Read the judgment on the High Court of Sindh case law portal ↗
This summary is general information, not legal advice. It may not reflect later appeals or changes in the law. Read the full judgment and take advice on your own facts. Checked on 25 October 2026.
Discuss your matter with us
Tell us what you need. We will confirm receipt and keep you updated at every stage.
Our comment