Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 2120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
Tryton Medical Inc. - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 195 of 2017 & CM No. 888 of 2017
Decided On : 10-07-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Hemant Singh, Ms. Mamta Jha, Ms. Shilpa Arora, Mr. Ankit Arvind
For the Respondents: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Mr. T.P. Singh
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the orders and directions of superior courts/tribunals and the principle of judicial discipline in following the decisions of the appellate authorities.
Headnote:
Patent - National Phase Application - Patents Rules, 2003 - Rule 138, Rule 20, Rule 22 - The court discussed the provisions under Rule 138, Rule 20, and Rule 22 of the Patents Rules, 2003, and their interpretations. The court emphasized the power of the Controller to extend the time after condoning the delay and the specific provision under Rule 138 for seeking the relief of condonation of delay or extension of time beyond the prescribed period of 31 months. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to the orders and directions of superior courts/tribunals and the principle of judicial discipline in following the decisions of the appellate authorities.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a National Phase Application with a request for condonation of delay, which was rejected by the Controller of Patents. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) allowed the petitioner's appeal, directing the Controller to examine the application. Despite the IPAB's orders, the Controller failed to comply, leading to the petitioner filing a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conduct of the respondents in not complying with the orders passed by the IPAB was contrary to settled judicial principles. The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to comply with the orders passed by the IPAB and examine the petitioner's National Phase Application.
Issues: Non-compliance with orders of the IPAB, the conduct of the respondents in not adhering to the judicial discipline, and the petitioner's entitlement to maintain the writ petition for ensuring compliance with the orders of the superior tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the orders and directions of superior courts/tribunals and the principle of judicial discipline in following the decisions of the appellate authorities.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to comply with the orders passed by the IPAB and examine the petitioner's National Phase Application.
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:-
“(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to comply with the orders and direction dated 24th March, 2015 in O.A./10/2014/PT/DEL and 7th March, 2016 passed by the Hon'ble IPAB in OA/3/2016/PT/DEL and take on record the Petitioner's Indian National Phase Application arising from International Application No.PCT/US/2010/040962 and proceed with the examination of the said application at the earliest.”
2. The petitioner filed its PCT application no. PCT/US/2010/040962 with the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office claiming priority from the US application nos.61/222744 dated 02.07.2009 and 61/243433 dated 17.09.2009 and accordingly, the petitioner was required to file the National Phase Application within a period of 31 months from the said date; that is, on or before 02.02.2012.
3. The petitioner filed its National Phase Application along with an application under Rule 138 of the Patents Rules, 2003 seeking condonation of delay of 8 days in filing the national phase application.
4. The Controller of Patents (respondent no.2) considered the aforesaid application and also heard the representative of the petitioner on 20.03.2012 and, thereafter, passed an order dated 02.07.2013 rejecting the petitioner's application. The petitioner’s application was rejected principally on the ground that it was delayed by a period of 8 days, which according to respondent no.2 could not be condoned.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (the IPAB). The IPAB allowed the petitioner’s appeal by an order dated 24.03.2015; the operative part of which reads as under:-
"16. Consequently, this matter is remanded for consideration of the office of Controller in a manner known to law by providing all opportunities as per the entitlement of the appellant/applicant for seeking the relief of examination of the patent sought for by the appellant/applicant etc. It is made clear that the time consumed for disposal of the application for condonation of delay and extension of time and as well as the time consumed for filing of the present appeal and disposal of the same is to be excluded enabling the appellant to take steps as contemplated under provision of the Act and Rules for the examination of the claimed patent etc. It is further made clear that the application of the appellant should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible."
6. A bare perusal of the order dated 24.03.2015 indicates that the IPAB was of the view that the delay of 8 days in filing the application could be condoned.
7. Despite orders passed by the IPAB, respondent no.2 did not take any steps to comply with the directions issued by the IPAB.
8. In view of the above, the petitioner was constrained to file representations before respondent no.2 including representations dated 17.06.2015, 20.07.2015 and 07.08.2015. The petitioner was once again heard and after hearing the same, respondent no.2 passed an order dated 19.01.2016, inter alia, holding as under:-
“I am of the view that the instant application is time barred beyond the prescribed time limit and by operation of Rule 22 of the Patent Rules, 2003, the same has been become as deemed to have been withdrawn.”
9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner once again approached the IPAB as according to the petitioner, respondent no.2 had failed to comply with the order dated 24.03.2015 passed by the IPAB.
10. The IPAB considered the grievance of the petitioner and accepted the contention that respondent no.2 had failed to comply with the earlier order. Undisputedly, the IPAB’s order of 24.03.2015 had expressly directed respondent no.2 to examine the petitioner’s application, making it quite clear that the delay could be condoned. Notwithstanding the aforesaid order, respondent no.2 declined to accept
