Del. HC: Threshold Income to Claim Financial Aid Under Rashtriya Arogya Nidhi Unreasonable  ||  Bom. HC: Tender Conditions Challenged by Contractors Through PIL Pollute Purity of Stream of PIL  ||  Del. HC: Can Only Interfere With Industrial Tribunal’s Decision if Found Perverse  ||  Raj. HC: Impermissible for Mag. & ASJ to Take Cognizance Against Same Accused for Diff. Offences  ||  Del. HC: Municipal Solid Waste in Delhi Not Getting Processed as Per Solid Waste Management Rules  ||  Supreme Court Launches Whatsapp Messaging Services, Advocates and Parties to Receive Updates  ||  Kar. HC: Challenge to Singing State Anthem Dismissed, Right to Remain Silent Cited  ||  Del. HC: Property Given by Deceased Husband Can Only be Enjoyed by Hindu Woman Without Income  ||  SC: Can Only Apply Egg Shell Skull Rule if Patient Had Pre-Existing Conditions  ||  NCDRC Members Roasted for Issuing Warrants Despite SC’s Order Directing Non-Coercive Steps    

Sonya Kapur vs. Controller General of Patent, Designs and Tradmark and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (12 Dec 2022)

Right to oppose an application for grant of a patent is a valuable right, and cannot be permitted to be defeated on technical considerations

MANU/DE/5106/2022

Intellectual Property Rights

Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 assails order passed by the Patent Office, whereby Patent No. 363697 has been granted to Respondent No. 3 without considering the pre-grant opposition filed by the petitioner.

The right to oppose an application for grant of a patent is statutorily conferred by Section 25 of the Patents Act, 1970. It is a valuable right, and cannot be permitted to be defeated on technical considerations. The absence of a pre-grant opposition also confers rights on the patent holder, once the patent is granted.

In that view of matter, and given the fact that it is conceded that a pre-grant opposition was, in fact, filed by the petitioner, albeit in the wrong format, present Court is of the opinion that the interests of justice would require the said pre-grant opposition to be considered before the Patent Office takes a call on the grant of patent as sought by Respondent No. 3.

Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application of Respondent No. 3 for grant of Patent No. 363697 is remanded to the Patent Office for re-consideration. The Patent Office would also take into account the pre-grant opposition filed by the petitioner. It is made clear that the Patent Office shall restrict its consideration to the pre-grant opposition filed by the petitioner and shall not allow any other pre-grant opposition to be filed, to the application filed by Respondent 3 for grant of patent. Petition allowed.

Tags : PATENT   GRANT   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved