IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 19189 OF 2025 (IPR-)

BETWEEN:

SRI. MANJAPPA CHATRAD S/O DILLEPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.E 835, GOLLHALLI CHANDAPURA CIRCLE, ANEKAL BANGALORE SOUTH PO: ELECTRONICS CITY BANGALORE DISTRICT-560 100 …PETITIONER (BY MISS. AKSHATHA M PATEL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by 1. 3M INDIA LIMITED MAHALAKSHMI B M HAVING OFFICES AT PLOT NO 48-51 Location: HIGH ELECTRONIC CITY, HOSUR ROAD COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE, KARNATAKA INDIA-560 100 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY DIRECTOR EMAIL: investorhelpdesk.in@mmm.com REGISTERED UNDER 1956 COMPANIES ACT 2. 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY HAVING OFFICES AT 3M CENTER PO BOX 33427, SAINT PAUL MN 55133-3427 UNITED STATE OF AMERICA REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY VICE PRESIDENT EMAIL tmspielbauer@mmm.com REGISTERED UNDER A DELAWAR CORPORATION COMPANIES ACT

3. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS THE PATENT OFFICE I.P.O. BUILDING G.S.T ROAD, GUINDY CHENNAI - 600032 EMAIL chennai-patent@nic.in REPRESENTED BY ITS CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADE MARK …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 &

R2;

SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSG FOR R3)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 64(B) AND (C) OF THE PATENTS ACT, 1970 PRAYING TO DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO. 3 TO REVOKE PATENT NO. 416744 ISSUED IN FAVOUR RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO. 3 TO RECTIFY THE PATENT NO. 416744 TITLED ROAD SAFETY DEVICE TO REFLECT PETITIONER AS THE PATENTEE AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER ON MAINTAINABILITY The Office has raised an objection regarding the ‘maintainability of the present writ petition’.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking revocation of patent No.416744, titled ‘Road Safety Device’, on the following grounds:

i. That there are no valid assignment of the patent as required under Section 68 of the Patents Act, 1970;

ii. That there was a deemed waiver of the petitioner's rights at the time of resignation;

iii. That there existed no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent No. 2.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that, under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, a petition for revocation is maintainable before the High Court. The petitioner relies on the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, which amended Section 64 and restored the jurisdiction to revoke patents to the High Courts after the abolition of an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner, therefore, submits that, in view of the legislative change and the absence of an operational Intellectual Property Division (IPD) in this Court, the present matter may be directed to be reclassified as a ‘Commercial Original Suit (Commercial O.S.)’ for consideration under the original civil jurisdiction of this Court.

4. The respondents object to the maintainability of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or as a ‘Commercial Original Suit’.

5. Learned counsel submits that a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, is not a writ proceedings, but a matter falling squarely within the original civil jurisdiction of the High Court. Hence, the proper procedural form is a civil petition, not a writ petition. It is further contended that several High Courts namely Delhi, Madras, Kolkata and Himachal Pradesh have already framed Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, and in all these jurisdictions, revocation matters under the Patents Act, 1970 are registered as petitions, and not as writ or suit. He further contends that even before this Court there are number of petitions filed under various statues which require the recording of evidence but are not classified as a suit, namely i. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 -

Election Petition ii. The Admiralty (Jurisdict