IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.
Protean Electric Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The Controller Of Patents And Designs. - Respondent
AID NO. 15 OF 2022
Decided On : 06-04-2023
Patents Act 1970 - Sections 117A, 13(3) , 14 and 15 - Patent Rules 2003 - Rule 28 (7) - Plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles - errors like loss of torque, torque ripple and acoustic noise decreasing the efficiency of electric motor - Appellant is engaged in providing automotive technology specializing in “in-wheel motor technology” which includes an in-wheel, electric-drive system for hybrid, plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles - Appellant has a global presence. Patent applications have been filed and granted in various jurisdictions for subject invention - First sensor is arranged to output a first signal indicative of a first rotor flux angle associated with the first set of magnet poles as rotor rotates relative to stator – Held, validity of the decision is tested by underlying content and reasons. But there is more - Equally significant is fact that a judgment speaks to the present and to the future. Judicial outcomes taken singularly or in combination have an impact upon human lives - Judgment is amenable to wider critique and scrutiny, going beyond immediate contest in a courtroom - AID 15 of 2022 stands allowed
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.
1. This is an appeal under section 117A of the Patents Act 1970 (the Act) assailing an order dated 8 April 2022 passed by the Controller of Patents (the order).
2. The appellant had filed Patent Application No 1023/KOLNP/2014 on 13 May 2014 (the subject application) before the Indian Patent Office claiming priority from 19 October 2011 in the National Phase Entry in India for an invention titled “AN ELECTRIC MOTOR OR GENERATOR”.
3. The appellant is engaged in providing automotive technology specializing in “in-wheel motor technology” which includes an in-wheel, electric-drive system for hybrid, plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles. The appellant has a global presence. Patent applications have been filed and granted in various jurisdictions for the subject invention.
4. Briefly, the subject invention relates to an electric motor or generator comprising of a rotor having a first set of magnet poles; a stator having first sensor mounted on the stator and a second sensor mounted in a substantially diametrically opposite position on the stator relative to the first sensor. The first sensor is arranged to output a first signal indicative of a first rotor flux angle associated with the first set of magnet poles as the rotor rotates relative to the stator. The second sensor is arranged to output a second signal indicative of a second rotor flux angle associated with the first set of magnet poles as the rotor rotates relative to the stator. Necessary means are arranged to determine a corrected rotor flux angle by averaging the first rotor flux angle indicated in the first sensor and the second rotor flux angle indicated in the second sensor.
5. It is contended that the subject invention has the advantage of allowing the correlation between the commutation magnets and the drive magnets to be more accurately determined, thereby allowing the accuracy of an electrical phase angle determination to be increased with a resulting increase in operating efficiency of an electric motor or generator. An electric motor uses magnets to create motion and this motion is the initial source of energy for the engine. In the subject invention, two types of magnets are used namely the commutation magnets and drive magnets. This feature provides the technical advancement of allowing the correction between the commutation magnets and drive magnets to be more accurately determined, thereby allowing the accuracy of the electrical phase angle determination to be increased with a resulting increase in operating efficiency of an electric motoror generator avoiding the errors like loss of torque, torque ripple and acoustic noise decreasing the efficiency of electric motor. The subject invention helps improve the driving experience and generates more power as power goes straight from the motor to the wheel.
6. It is alleged that the respondent authorities have unduly procrastinated the process of examination. After a delay of almost 5 years, the First Examination Report (FER) was issued on 7 January 2019. The response to the FER was filed by the appellant on 3 July 2019. The matter was fixed for hearing on 10 August 2021. Thereafter, the date of hearing was repeated adjourned and finally the publication, examination and re-examination were completed after a delay of almost 8 years. There has been no compliance with the prescribed timelines as stipulated under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. The entire process of examination has been marred by delay. The requests for multiple examinations and unnecessary requests for amendments are also unjustified and unwarranted.
7. It is also alleged that the Controller in the FER unjustifiably recommended changes with reference to a prior art D1 being US2008025858A1 dated 3 May 1984. Nevertheless, the appellant had responded to the FER on 3 July 2019 and also filed an amended application to deal with the objections raised in the FER. It is further alleged that the respondent authorities
Passing of a reasoned and a speaking order is an integral part of the principle of audi alteram partem. The Controller must consider the existing knowledge and how a person skilled in the art would m....
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....
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.
The Controller must provide proper reasoning for rejecting a patent application and consider the applicant's submissions, failing which violates the principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a detailed analysis of the existing knowledge and how the subject invention lacks inventiveness in light of the prior art when ....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.