Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
Amst – Systemtechnik Gmbh – Appellant
Versus
Government Of India, Ministry Of Commerce & Industry, The Patent Office – Respondent
ORDER :
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.
By this writ petition, the petitioner assails order dated 21.12.2023 rejecting Patent Application No.3022/CHENP/2011 as withdrawn under Section 11-B (4) of the Patents Act, 1970 (the Patents Act).
2. The petitioner filed PCT application bearing No.PCT/EP/09/007174 claiming priority from 09.10.2008. The above mentioned Indian patent application was the national phase application derived from the PCT application. Such application was filed on 03.05.2011, and did not specify a priority date. On 12.09.2013, the petitioner, through its agent, made a request for examination. The said request for examination did not elicit a reply. After several years, on 26.09.2022, the petitioner informed the respondent that the request for examination was not responded to and that the First Examination Report (FER) was not received by the petitioner. The respondent was, therefore, requested to issue the FER. In response, by e-mail of 17.08.2022, the respondent stated that the e-mail has been forwarded to the examination unit (Examiner and Controller). Eventually, impugned order dated 21.12.2023 was issued holding that the patent application was treated as withdrawn.
3.
The court ruled that a patent application cannot be treated as withdrawn if the applicant intended to pursue it, despite delays in response from the Patent Office.
The court ruled that a patent application cannot be deemed abandoned due to an error by the applicant's agent unless intentional abandonment is proven.
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 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....
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....
The court affirmed that rejection of a patent application must adhere to principles of natural justice, including proper examination and opportunity to respond, underscoring the importance of procedu....
Controller must apply Sections 9(4), 11(3), 11(6) of Patents Act for specification discrepancies before rejecting patent application.
The court emphasized the importance of the Controller applying its mind to the facts and materials before it and deemed it appropriate to assume jurisdiction due to the non-application of mind by the....
The court mandates timely implementation of tribunal directives, emphasizing adherence to procedural timelines in veterans' applications.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
