IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, Amit Mahajan, JJ.
Humanity Life Extension Llc – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 12238 of 2019
Decided On : 20-07-2023
Patents Rules - Extension of Time - Rule 138 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a US-based medical device manufacturer, sought an extension of time to file its National Phase Application in India under the Patents Rules. The Controller of Patents declined to entertain the application, leading to the petitioner's grievance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendment to Rule 138 of the Patents Rules, which removed the provision for extension of time, was valid and within the powers conferred on the Central Government. The court also noted that India had expressed reservations towards Regulation 49.6 of the PCT Regulations, and the IPO had communicated its reservations towards the same regulation.
Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to additional time for filing the National Phase Application and whether the amendment to Rule 138 of the Patents Rules was ultra vires the Patent Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the time period for filing the application is mandatory and that the Patents Rules are in conformity with Regulation 49 of the PCT Regulations. It also noted that India had expressed reservations towards Regulation 49.6 of the PCT Regulations.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding it unmerited.
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
1. The petitioner (Humanity Life Extension LLC) is, inter alia, engaged in the business of manufacturing medical devices and its corporate headquarters is located in the United States of America. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:
"i) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare, by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction, that the amendment of Rule No. 138 of the Patents Rules, 2003 effective from 16.05.2016, by virtue of which provision for extension of time to entertain an international patent application by one month has been taken away, as being ultra vires of the rule making power conferred upon the Central Government under Section 159 of the Patents Act, 1970, being in conflict with the Patents (Amendment) Act No. 38 of 2002 and Patents (Amendment) Act No. 15 of 2005 and existing Rule 23 of the Patents Rules, 2003;
ii) The Hon'ble Court may, further, be pleased to direct the respondent Controller of Patents, by means of issue of a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction, to entertain the petitioner's National Phase Application and the application for extension of time, whether maintainable under Regulation 49.6 of Patent Cooperation Treaty Regulations and/or Rule 138 of Patents Rules, 2003, and decide the same after affording adequate opportunity of hearing and for presenting its case before the Controller of Patents."
2. The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved as the Controller of Patents (hereafter `the Controller') has declined to entertain the petitioner's National Phase Application.
3. The petitioner claims that on 26.07.2019, its US Patent Attorney had instructed the Indian Patent Attorney to file the petitioner's National Phase Application for registration of its patent for a System and Method for Treating Blood, corresponding to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (hereafter `PCT') Application No. PCT/US2018/016797 dated 05.09.2018, claiming priority from US Application No. 15/425,494 dated 06.02.2017 captioned "System and Method for Treating Blood". The petitioner claims that its US Patent Attorney had expressly communicated to its Indian Patent Attorney that the time period of thirty-one months for filing the National Phase Application will expire on 06.09.2019. The petitioner claims that after the expiry of the aforesaid time period, it contacted its US Patent Attorney to enquire about the status of the National Phase Application in India. On enquiries, the petitioner became aware that the Indian Patent Attorney had not filed the National Phase Application within the stipulated period.
4. The petitioner engaged another attorney in India and on 01.10.2019, its Indian Patent Attorney forwarded the petitioner's National Phase Application under the cover of its letter to the Indian Patent Office (hereafter `IPO'). This application was returned by the IPO on 03.10.2019, and received by the petitioner's Indian Patent Attorney on 07.10.2019.
5. Immediately, thereafter on 09.10.2019, the petitioner's Indian Patent Attorney once again forwarded the National Phase Application to the IPO claiming that the application was maintainable in view of Regulation 49.6 of the Patent Corporation Treaty Regulations (hereafter `the PCT Regulations'). The IPO did not accept the same and, on 14.10.2019, once again returned the said applications.
6. The petitioner had filed an application in the United States bearing no.15/425,494 captioned "System and Method for Treating Blood" on 06.02.2017. It had filed an International Application on 05.02.2018, which is within the period of twelve months as prescribed under the PCT. Admittedly, in terms of Rule 20 of the Patents Rules, 2003 (hereafter `the Patents Rules') the National Phase Application was required to be filed within a period of thirty-one months from the Priority Date; that is, within thirty-one months from 06.02.2017. The last date for filing the National Phase Appli
The time period for filing the application is mandatory, and the Patents Rules are in conformity with Regulation 49 of the PCT Regulations.
Rule 22 of Patent Rules validly extinguishes patent rights for non-compliance with statutory deadlines, affirming the necessity of strict adherence to filing timelines.
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 court held that human error in failing to respond to a patent examination report does not justify refusal of the application, and the Registrar erred in applying amended regulations instead of or....
The Registrar of Trade Marks cannot condone delay in review applications beyond the period prescribed by Trade Marks Rules, affirming adherence to statutory timelines.
Registrar's discretion under Rule 48 to allow additional evidence at any time upheld unless exercised perversely; appeal maintainable despite Section 131(2).
The court affirmed that the patent term under Section 53 begins from the application date, which is constitutionally valid and consistent with international obligations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the limitation period for filing an application under Section 49N of the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 2022, and the i....
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.