Page:Advaiti Management.pdf/52

 I saw this assertion of Truth unfold before my own eyes. I was recording the details as stated by both of them. Nobody doubted the veracity of my: recording. I was conducting thirty-five such enquiries. Union had no objection and later all those documents stood verification by the Labour Court. Even if I was called a lackey of Capitalist, and a Marathi Officer who was siding with the Gujarati Owners, nobody had any doubt about veracity of my recordings.

So many years have passed but the shining truth of Vishnu and the collapse of the arrogant accused and his argument is still clear before me. I have experienced the display of Truth on various occasions in my life. Iam convinced that Truth is self-reliant and self-willed, and I have no doubt about it. I was in on the side of Truth at that time.

Ihave faced the Truth from the other side as well. Before the Anti- Diabetic tablets, daily dose of Insulin supply by injection was the remedy available for the diabetic person. Taking daily dose of injection at home was a cumbersome and troublesome procedure for the diabetic patients. Around 1969, Hoechst and Pfizer jointly promoted Tolbutamide as an anti- diabetic medicine in the oral tablet form. It was a great relief for the patients as it saved the daily injection. The original Patent of Tolbutamide was taken by Hoechst and co-promoted by Pfizer in the market. It was a costly product but had high demand. Haffkine Institute of Mumbai had taken a patent for the same product with manufactured with different process. Unichem marketed Tolbutamide prepared by Haffkine’s process at a very cheap rate. This was giving a tough challenge in the market to Hoechst and Pfizer. Hoechst filed a petition against Government of Maharashtra and Unichem for infringement of their patent. They wanted Haffkine patent to be deregistered and declared as invalid. The patent authorities who had granted patent to Hoechst had granted subsequent patent to Governor of Maharashtra on behalf of Haffkine Institute. Unichem’s defence was that they were manufacturing on the basis of patent granted to Haffkine and that its process of manufacturing was distinct from the process patented by Hoechst. Starting materials in both processes were same, and the end product Tolbutamide was same, but the manufacturing process was different. In India there were only process patents and no product patent was registered for Pharmaceuticals. According to Unichem since they manufactured their product under a registered patent even issued subsequently they had not infringed Indian Patent Act. That was our side

of the Truth.

Even if a subsequent patent is granted by the patent authority it can be challenged in the High Court and Hoechst had done that. They wanted the subsequent patent declared invalid and Unichem prevented from exploiting the patent which was their property. As a strategy they

47 �