Present: Mr. Pravin Anand, Advocate for plaintiffs.
  Ms. Pratibha M. Singh and Ms. Saya Chaudhary Advocates for defendants.
   CS(OS) No. 534/2010
  Learned Counsel for plaintiffs seeks further time of two weeks for
  filing the additional original documents, to which Counsel for defendants has no
  Allowed to do so.
  On the pleadings of the parties, the following Issues are claimed for
  i. Whether the plaintiffs are the proprietor of the registered patent No.
  IN213457? (OPP)
  ii. Whether the impugned suit patent is purely a product patent or a product by
  process patent? (OPP/OPD)
  iii. Whether the patent registered in favour of the plaintiffs is invalid in
  nature and is liable to be revoked on the grounds contained in the counter claim
  and written statement filed by defendant No. 2? (OPD)
  iv. Whether the defendant?s? application for bioequivalence studies would amount
  to admission of the impugned product falling under the claims of Indian Patent
  No.213457? (OPP)
  v. Whether the defendants had intentionally suppressed its application for
  marketing approval before the DCGI for the impugned product to mislead the
  plaintiff? (OPP)
  vi. Whether defendant No.2?s manufacture and sale of its product ENTECA results
  in infringement of patent No.IN213457?
  vii. Whether the plaintiffs are guilty of suppressing material facts?
  viii. Whether the process of manufacture of its drug ENTECA being followed by
  defendant No. 2 is different than the process of manufacture being followed by
  the plaintiffs in respect of their drug BARACLUDE? (OPD)
  ix. Whether ENTECAVIR or any of its derivatives/ dosages are patentable in
  India? (OPD)
  x. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages as claimed in the plaint?
  xi. Whether the defendants are entitled to damages as claimed in the counter
  claim? (OPD)
  xii. Relief.
  No other Issue arises nor is pressed for.
  It has been agreed upon by learned Counsel for the parties that in view of
  order of Hon?ble Division Bench of this Court, parties will appear before the
  learned Local Commissioner - Ms. Kanwal Inder, District and Session Judge
  (Retd.) on 1st February, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. for drawing the schedule of recording
  of evidence in the High Court Premises, arrangement for which would be made by
  the parties. It has been also agreed upon by learned Counsel for the parties
  that the time frame of recording of evidence would be left to the learned Local
  Commissioner and all endeavors shall be made to complete recording of evidence
  within the time stipulated by the Hon?ble Division Bench i.e. within four months
  and fee of `80,000 (apart from out of pocket expenses) would be equally shared
  by both sides.
  Registry to ensure that record of this case is produced before the
  learned Local Commissioner on the date so fixed.
  Renotify on 4th July, 2011, awaiting report of learned Local
  Copy of this Order be given dasti to Counsel representing both sides
  and learned Local Commissioner for information and compliance.
  CS(OS) No. 534/2010 and I.A. No. 4981/2010 (u/S 151 CPC), I.A. No. 4982/2010
  (u/O 1 R 10 CPC) and CC No. 37/2010
  At the request of Counsel for the parties, renotify on 25th
  February, 2011 for hearing on I.A. No. 4981 of 2010 (u/S 151 CPC) and I.A. No.
  4982 of 2010 (u/O 1 R 10 CPC).
   Sunil Gaur, J.
  January 12, 2011
  CS(OS) No. 1946 of 2010 Page 1
  CS(OS) No. 1162 of 2008 Page 3
  CS(OS) No. 429 of 2004 Page 2
  CS(OS) No.4058 of 1992 Page 2
  CS(OS) No.534 of 2010 Page 3