The Indian Drug Manufacturers' Association (IDMA) in July this year had challenged the amendments to the rules, even as the Government had, in its affidavit, said that the changes were necessary for compliance under TRIPS.Thursday's hearing saw the Government counsel make a passing reference on some possible rethink at New Delhi on certain aspects. No official version on the nature of the rethink could, however, be got. The Government also sought time to make its written submission.

The division bench comprising justices Ghodeshwar and Radhakrishnan had earlier asked all parties concerned to file written submissions by September 27. The Government is, however, yet to make its written submission, and the bench on Thursday adjourned the case to November 16.

Earlier, the division bench had admitted an intervention application from the Institute of Intellectual Property in support of the Government, while the Intellectual Property Law Practitioners' Association has sought to support most points raised in the IDMA petition.

IDMA had originally moved the court challenging various allegedly "objectionable" clauses laid down in the rules. The drug body had claimed that the amended rules go much beyond the TRIPS requirements and even supersede the basic Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999.

The association had also claimed that since the rules were meant to carry out the provisos in the Patents Act, there is no justification at this stage to make drastic changes that supersede the basic act. Moreover, experts view this as a wasteful exercise, given that the Patents Act, 1970, is due for major changes for compliance under TRIPS before 2000.

Patent experts say the rules, among other things, dilute the powers of the Government to intervene and sell/distribute a patented invention in "public interest" and virtually limit the period of use of compulsory licences.