Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court - Orders

The European Union Represented By The ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 March, 2022

Author: Prathiba M. Singh

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh

                                                              Signature Not Verified
                                                              Digitally Signed
                                                              By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
                                                              Signing Date:15.03.2022
                                                              08:47:00

$~2 & 16
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                           W.P.(C)-IPD 5/2022
       THE EUROPEAN UNION REPRESENTED BY THE
       EUROPEAN COMMISSION                     ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. Vineet Rohilla and Mr. Rohit
                             Rangi, Advocates. (M:8800558037)
                    versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                            ..... Respondents
                     Through:          Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan, CGSC.

(16)                      AND
+                          W.P.(C)-IPD 6/2022
       THE EUROPEAN UNION REPRESENTED BY THE
       EUROPEAN COMMISSION                     ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. Vineet Rohilla and Mr. Rohit
                             Rangi, Advocates.
                    versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                    ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan, CGSC.
       CORAM:
       JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
                ORDER

% 11.03.2022

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present two writ petitions have been filed seeking setting aside of the orders No.POD/P-I/11-B/11123/DELNP/2012 dated 21st January, 2019 order No.POD/P-1111-B/3466/DELNP/2013 dated 30th September, 2019, by which the Petitioner's patents have been deemed to have been abandoned in terms of Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter the "Act"). The case of the Petitioner is that its patent agent did not do the follow up on the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:15.03.2022 08:47:00 patent application promptly and failed to file the response to the First Examination Report (hereinafter "FER") in time. The patent agent also did not inform the Petitioner about the steps to be taken after the FER was issued and it was only accidentally that the Petitioner discovered that the patents had been abandoned.

3. The submission of the Petitioner, is that the delay in filing the response to the FER ought to be condoned as precious statutory rights of the Petitioner have been adversely affected and the patents have been deemed to have been abandoned. It is also submitted that due to the fault of the patent agent, the Petitioner ought not to be made to suffer.

4. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan, ld. CGSC on behalf of the Union of India/Respondent No.1.

5. List on 25th May, 2022.

6. Let the counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter. It is made clear that the parties shall strictly adhere to the timelines directed above.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

MARCH 11, 2022/dk/ms