The court ruled that the refusal of patent registration violated natural justice principles and mandated a fresh hearing considering all relevant evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by order dated 13^th July 2021 passed by the respondent-Controller of Patents and Designs, whereby the respondent refused the application for registration of patent for “Heat Transfer Assembly for Heat Exchanger”. The application stood refused, inter alia, on the ground that sufficient cause was not made out by the petitioner for being treated as the applicant for the grant of patent. The facts of the present case are peculiar and reference to the facts in brief is necessary, to understand the backdrop in which the impugned order was passed by the respondent. 

2. The petitioner-Euro-apex B.V. entered into a licence agreement with one Shinhan Apex Corporation on 22^nd February 1993, under which the said Shinhan Apex Corporation was authorized to manufacture and sell the petitioner’s products in South Korea. As the relationship between the parties deteriorated over a period of time, on 22^nd February 2008, the petitioner terminated the said licence agreement with Shinhan Apex Corporation and as per the agreed clauses, a post termination period of confidentiality extended to 5 years from the date of termination. On 9^th July 2008, the said Shinhan Apex Corporation filed an application for grant of patent for the aforesaid technology in Korea. According to the petitioner, the application was moved unauthorizedly and on the basis of information and technology that was confidential under the licence agreement. Such application for grant of patent was also moved on 6^th October 2008 by the said Shinhan Apex Corporation in India, drawing priority from the Korean patent application.

3. In this backdrop, the petitioner approached the Netherlands Arbitration Institute with a request for arbitration of the disputes that had arisen between it and the Shinhan Apex Corporation, claiming that the clauses of the licence agreement were violated and that confidentiality obligations were also violated by Shinhan Apex Corporation. On 17^th June 2010, the petitioner filed representation by way of opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, opposing the application for grant of patent moved before the respondent herein, amongst others, on the ground that confidentiality obligations were breached by the Shinhan Apex Corporation in filing the said patent application. A separate such representation by way of opposition was moved on 7^th September 2010 by Bharat-Apex Industries Limited, being the Indian licencee of the petitioner.

4. On 23^rd December 2011, the Netherlands Arbitration Institute passed the partial final award holding that Shinhan Apex Corporation had indeed breached confidentiality of the licence agreement and issued various directions, including a direction to the Shinhan Apex Corporation to transfer its rights in the Indian patent application unconditionally in favour of the petitioner. Immediately, on 19^th January 2012, the petitioner filed a request for change of applicant before the respondent on the basis of the said partial final award. On 2^nd February 2012, the petitioner withdrew its representation by way of opposition and on 4^th April 2012, Shinhan Apex Corporation executed a Deed of Assignment in favour of the petitioner, in the light of the findings rendered by the Netherlands Arbitration Institute in the said partial final award. On 1^st March 2018, a request was moved before the respondent in the pending patent application for the name of the inventor in form-8, as per the Patents Act and Rules, stating that Mr. Dinulescu was the inventor. It is relevant to note here that when Shinhan Apex Corporation moved the patent application before the respondent, its President Mr. Mun-Jae Cho was mentioned as the inventor. In the said form-8 moved on 1^st March 2018, specific reliance was placed on the aforesaid partial final award delivered by the Netherlands Arbitration Institute.

5. On 13^th July 2018, First Examination Report (FER) was issued in respect of the said application. The res