AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Usha, J
The instant revocation application is for revoking the patent No. 194620 under the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the
Act). The applicant's case is that:-
The applicants as well as other manufacturers have been manufacturing and trading in brass bulb holder rings and/or Bakelite bulb holders. Copies of
the sales tax assessment orders in the name of the applicant and other manufacturers are enclosed.
2 . The respondent No. 1 filed an application for grant of patent in 1996. Subsequently filed a civil suit against the applicant and others for injunction
based on the application for grant of patent. An order of injunction was granted at the interim stage which subsequently was vacated. The suit was
dismissed for non-prosecution.
3 . The applicant become aware of the granted patent from the statutory warning notice through publication in a local daily newspaper. The applicant
filed a Writ Petition challenging the gazette notification before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. The Hon'ble High Court directed the applicant to
move the Appellate Board for revocation under Section 64 of the Act. Therefore the present application.
4 . The grounds of revocation are that the impugned notification dated 20.11.204 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unwarranted. The concerned
authorities had not verified the veracity and authenticity of the claim. The applicants are the inventors of the product and the same has been admitted
by the respondent No. 1 in the suit. The applicants were first to invest and market the products and therefore the respondent cannot claim a right and
hence the patent is liable to revoked. The authorities had not given notice to the other manufacturers about the patent and is therefore liable to be
quashed. The respondent is not entitled to get the patent granted and therefore liable to be revoked.
5 . The respondents filed their counter statement stating that the applicant is not a person aggrieved and therefore the application for rectification is
liable to be dismissed. The rest of the averments were denied No grounds as per the provisions of Section 64 of the Act has been made out and
therefore the application is liable to be dismissed.
6 . We have heard Shri Sibo Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Sachin Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent during the
Circuit Bench Sitting at Delhi on 30th August, 2012.
7 . The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the application for grant of patent was made 1996 and it was notified in the gazette in 2004
and the patent was granted in 2004. The counsel drew our attention to the gazette notification at page 40 of the application and submitted that it is an
improved metal fixture for holding bulb and nothing more and therefore nothing novel. The suit filed by the respondent for infringement was dismissed
by the Allahabad High Court.
The learned counsel further submitted that as per the directions of the High Court the present application for revocation has been filed under
Section 64 of the Act. The counsel reiterated whatever was stated in the application for revocation. The application for revocation has been filed
under Section 64 of the Act. The counsel also submitted that there was no invention as per Section 3(d) of the Act as it was only an improvement in
the metal fixture.
The Counsel finally relied on the judgment reported in AIR 1983 Delhi 496 - Ajay Industrial Corporation Vs. Shiro Kannao and submitted that a
person interested must be a person who has a direct, personal and commercial interest which was injured or affected by the continuance of the patent
in the register. In this case, the applicants commercial interest is affected and therefore they are persons interested.
In reply, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the applicant is not a person interested and therefore no locus to file this instant application
for revocation. The applicants have not made out a case for revocation. The applicants have not satisfied the provisions of Section 64 of the Act. The
application is therefore to be dismissed.
In rejoinder the applicant's counsel submitted that there was no invention and it was only an improvement. The patent has to be revoked for this
reason alone.
We have heard and considered the arguments of both the counsel and have gone through the pleadings and documents.
An application for revocation can be filed by any person interested on various grounds as per the provisions of Section 64 of the Act. The grounds
on which the applicant has filed this instant application is that the impugned notification is illegal and arbitrary and that they are the inventors of this
product and therefore the respondents cannot claim any right. In our considered view, we do not find any valid ground made out by the applicants for
revoking the patent. Consequently, the application is dismissed. No order as to costs. M.P. No. 55/2010 is dismissed as infructuous.