PRABHA SRIDEVAN,CHAIRMAN - (1.) THE invention relates to Bicyclic Heteroaromatic compounds and in particular quinazoline derivative which exhibits protein tyrosine kinase inhibition.
(2.) WE have fixed the date of hearing in May. We thought that we might seek the opinion of independent experts appointed by us as neutral witnesses. We have found that when the parties furnish expert evidence, predictably the opposite side attacks the evidence. We thought this problem would be obviated by the appointment of a Court witness. We find that while the Applicant has come up with the names of scientists in India, the respondent has come up with the names of scientists from elsewhere.
(3.) WE are of the opinion that the expert must be an expert agreed to by both the parties. The fees fixed will be shared by both the parties. Each will make out a draft for its share in favour of the expert and hand it over to the registrar of the IPAB. These will be handed over to the expert by the IPAB. We do not intend to have each party paying to scientist of their choice, then this exercise of having a court witness to assist us would be defeated. It will again be an exercise in futility. Payment in foreign exchange may involve difficulties which at this moment the IPAB may not be able to handle. We genuinely feel that in the days to come, the need for such Court experts will arise more frequently. We hope the members of the Bar will assist the IPAB in working out a viable solution for this problem as officers of Court instead of as spokespersons for the clients. The expertise of these Scientist -witnesses will also enhance the quality of the orders. When we appoint a neutral witness we would be giving the expert, the copies of the complete specifications, the prior arts and other evidence referred to by both sides. The pleadings will not be given. We would request the expert to examine the materials furnished and give his opinion on the novelty, obviousness, insufficiency as the case may be.;