Diebold Self Service Systems vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, SAURABH BANERJEE
Diebold Self Service Systems – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Table of Content
1. delay in filing national phase application. (Para 1)
2. rule 22 of patent rules challenged as ultra vires. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. allegations against rule 22 regarding rights of an applicant. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. legislation and time limits under patent act and rules. (Para 12 , 19 , 20)
5. court's analysis on rights and obligations. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
6. importance of adherence to patent application timelines. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 26)
7. interpretation of 'shall' as mandatory. (Para 29 , 30 , 34)
8. court dismisses petition, affirms rule 22. (Para 35 , 36 , 38)

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Banerjee, J.

1. As per facts, the petitioner after initially filing US Patent application for grant of a patent on 12.10.2012, through its agents in the U.S.A, filed for grant of the same patent vide a Patent Cooperation Treaty [Hereinafter referred to as "PCT"] application before the World Intellectual Property Organization [Hereinafter referred to as "WIPO"] on 14.10.2013 claiming priority therefrom. Thereafter, the petitioner was required to file the National Phase application for the grant of the same patent before the Indian Patent Office [Hereinafter referred to as "IPO"] withi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTMANMOHAN, SAURABH BANERJEEDiebold Self Service Systems – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, SAURABH BANERJEE
Diebold Self Service Systems – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent