$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserved: 9^thApril, 2024 Date of Decision: 04^th July, 2024 + W.P.(C)-IPD 9/2023 SAURAV CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Neeraj Grover, Ms. Meenakshi Ogra, Mr Tarun Khurana Adv. Mr Samrat S. Kang, Mr. Rishi Vohra Adv. Mr. Hemant Kataria, Ms. Chhavi Pandey & Mr. Amarjeet Kumar, Advs. (M: 9891012029)

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr.

Zubin Singh, Adv. for UOI. (M:

9891088658)

Mr. Naveen Chaklan, Answering Patent Agent.

Mr. Chander M Lall, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Nancy Roy, Ms. Archana Sachdeva, Mr. Sushant M. Singh, Ms. Kruttika Vijay, Mr. Raghav Malik, Ms. Ananya Chug & Mr. Sushant Singh, Adv. for Intervenor IPAA. (M:

98117 77625)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

W.P.(C)-IPD9/2023 Page1of60 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BACKGROUND FACTS:

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the abandonment of its patent application number 201911031496 titled “Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine and Method of Blind Stitching”. The prayer in the writ petition is to restore the patent application of the Petitioner. The details of the said application are set out below:

W.P.(C)-IPD9/2023 Page2of60 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

3. The case of the Petitioner is that he had filed a patent application through one firm “M/s Delhi Intellectual Property LLP” (hereinafter referred as the ‘firm’) having office at 4-K, 4th Floor, Gopala Tower, 25, Rajendra Place New Delhi-110008. Mr. Naveen Chaklan, Partner at the said firm was dealing with the Petitioner’s patent application. In addition to Mr. Chaklan, two more lawyers are stated to be working in the said firm. The firm provides registration services for trademarks, patents, copyrights and designs.

4. According to the Petitioner, the application was filed on 3rd August, 2019 and a request for examination was filed on 21st February, 2022. Thereafter, the FER in respect of the subject application was issued on 29^th April, 2022 with a direction by the Patent Office that the response should be filed within a period of six months.

5. It is the case of the Petitioner that repeated follow ups were made by him with the firm and Mr. Chaklan on various dates i.e., 15th March, 2022, 28th August, 2022, 5^th November, 2022, 19th November, 2022, 14th December, 2022, 22^nd December, 2022 and 8th January, 2023. However, he did not receive any reply from the Patent Agent. During the process, the Petitioner found out that the application was “deemed to be abandoned” due to non-filing of the response to the FER. The Petitioner then engaged a new Patent Agent. Finally, the Petitioner filed a request for restoring the patent application on 28th January, 2023. Hence, the present writ petition. On 31^st July, 2023, notice was issued to the Patent Agent by this Court. Mr. Chaklan has appeared and made submissions.

W.P.(C)-IPD9/2023 Page3of60 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ARGUMENTS:

6. Notice was issued in this matter on 15^th February, 2023, and submissions have been heard. The same are captured below:

i. Mr. Grover, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relies upon the decision of this Court in European Union Represented by the European Commission v. Union of India and Ors. 2022:DHC:2301 to argue that in exceptional circumstances High Court can exercise power under Article 226 to condone delay.

ii. It is his submission that in the present case, there are exceptional circumstances wherein despite follow ups, the Patent Agent did not respond and thus the Petitioner ought to be given benefit of the said decision.

iii. Mr. Grover submits that repeated emails by the Petitioner from 19^th February, 2022, 15^th March, 2022, 28^th August, 2022, 5^th November, 2022, 19^th November, 2022 and 14^th December, 2022 have gone un-

replied.

iv. On 22nd September, 2022, the Petitioner came to know that the status on the website is now