RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

1. The only issue we are called upon to grapple with is: should the respondents/the original defendants be permitted to continue the prosecution of proceedings for revocation of patents instituted by them, before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (in short “IPAB”) when, purportedly, they have elected to prosecute their counter claims for revocation of the very same patents, in the suits for infringement, filed by the appellant, who is the original plaintiff.

2. Before we proceed further, it may be useful to very briefly sketch out the relevant circumstances which have led to the institution of the captioned appeal. For the sake of convenience we would be referring to the parties before us, by their name with the exception that the respondents collectively would continue to be referred as such.

2.1 Thus, in this appeal the appellant, i.e., Dr. Aloys Wobben has laid a challenge to the judgment and order dated 6.12.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, in the background of the circumstances set out hereinafter.

2.2 Dr. Wobben is both a scientist and an engineer, who claims to have invented devices, methods and systems in the field of Wind Turbi