plaintiff no.1 thus declaring plaintiff no.1 as the exclusive licensee for the purposes of Indian Patent No.196774.

Subsequently, vide application dated 09.03.2009 under Section 69 of the Patents Act, 1970 the plaintiffs requested the Patent Office to record on the Patent Register, the Licenseagreements dated 08.01.2001 and 04.09.2008. 8. That on November 19th, 2009, Plaintiff no.1 received an official communication from the Deputy Controller of Patents confirming the recordal of plaintiff no.1 in the Register of Patents as the exclusive licensee of Indian Patent No.196774 on account of the exclusive license agreements dated January 8th, 2001 and September 4th, 2008 between plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff no.2. 9. Pfizer, Inc had applied for grant of a patent in respect of the CP-358,774 compound, also known as Erlotinib Hydrochloride and its process vide Application No.537/DEL/1996 on March 13th, 1996. Subsequently, Pfizer, Inc assigned their entire right in and to the above patent application to Pfizer Products Inc., who in turn has assigned one half share to Plaintiff No.2. These assignments were filed at the Patent Office on 7th November 2005. This patent application was taken grant on February 23rd, 2007. Thereafter, Natco Pharma Limited filed a pre-grant opposition challenging plaintiff no.2's patent application on April 10th, 2007. After granting adequate opportunity to plaintiff no.2 and Natco Pharma Ltd., to present oral arguments, written submission and to lead evidence in support of the same, the Indian Patent Office rejected the pre-grant opposition filed by Natco Pharma Ltd., through a well reasoned order dated July 4th, 2007. Thus on 6th July 2007, the Controller of Patents issued a patent certificate for the compound "A novel (6,7-bis (2-methoxyethoxy) quinazolin-4-yl)-(3-ethynylphenyl) amine hydrochloride compound" ('Erlotinib Hydrochloride') bearing Patent No.196774 dating back to 23rd February, 2007, which was when the patent was originally found in order for grant. This has been recorded by the Controller vide his covering letter dated 6th July, 2007 noting that the grant of Patent has been recorded in the Register of Patents on 6th July, 2007. 12. The plaintiffs have also pleaded, compound of the product for cancer, other patent applications, commercial use of patent by plaintiffs and also about filing of compulsory license of suit patent pleaded that the defendant is engaged in manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical and health care products in India, but the details of the constitution of the defendant is not disclosed. 13. It is pleaded that it was in the month of May 2011 that the information was received by the plaintiffs that defendant had begun to market and sell its infringing

product in India, which was being manufactured by NATCO Pharma Limited. The plaintiffs, therefore, deputed a representative to conduct a market survey whether the defendant was selling the product ERLOTIB in India within territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The collected invoice from J.F.Letoille, 830, Anna Salai, Chennai with regard to purchase of the same has been filed with the proceedings. This fact has been pleaded for bringing the suit within the jurisdiction of this Court. 14. It is pleaded case of the plaintiffs / applicants that the plaintiffs already initiated legal proceedings against Cipla Ltd, in order to protect its invaluable intellectual property vide C.S.(O.S.) 89 of 2008 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in which the defendant has filed an application for revocation of Indian Patent. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court