Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANISH PITALE
Euro-apex B.V. – Appellant
Versus
Controller of Patents and Designs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by order dated 13th 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 22nd 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 22nd 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 9th July 2008, the said Sh
The court ruled that the refusal of patent registration violated natural justice principles and mandated a fresh hearing considering all relevant evidence.
Court may allow reinstatement of patent applications deemed abandoned due to patent agent's negligence if applicant shows no intent to abandon and diligent follow-up.
An appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act is not maintainable against an order passed under Section 21(1), which deems a patent application abandoned if the applicant fails to comply with all r....
The Controller does not have the power to extend the time for filing a response to the FER under Section 21 of the Act and Rule 24B of the Rules. However, the Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction....
Procedural irregularities in patent opposition must respect principles of natural justice, and amendments to patent claims cannot broaden their scope.
The court affirmed that an arbitrator's award is final unless proven arbitrary or against public policy, emphasizing the necessity of rectifying procedural defects in claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments made to patent claims at the instance of the Controller, pursuant to the directions of the Controller, do not violate the principle....
The court affirmed that not all amendments to a trademark application are substantial alterations; the amendment's nature must be assessed based on its impact on the original application.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
