Allowed

Balasubramanya v. the Controller General of Patents

Madras HC19 Oct 2024WP(IPD)/25/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed a writ petition under Article 226, directing the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks to accept the petitioner's application for restoration of Patent No.385112. The Court held that rejecting the application would cause serious prejudice and constitute perversity of justice.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitioner is allowed. The respondent is directed to accept the petitioner's application for restoration (Form 15) of Patent No.385112 granted on 24.12.2021.

Balasubramanya Vs the Controller General of Patents — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(IPD).No.25 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

CORAM

¶4

DATED : 19.10.2024

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(IPD).Nos.25 of 2024

¶7

Balasubramanya Hanagal Manjunath … Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Controller General of

¶10

Patents, Designs and Trademarks The Controller of Patents and Designs Patent Office, IPR Building, SIDCO Plot, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. … Respondent

¶11

PRAYER:- This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to accept petitioner's application for restoration (Form 15) of Patent No.385112 granted on 24.12.2021 and pass such other orders.

¶12

For Petitioner : Ms.V.Priya

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi CGC

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondent to accept

¶16

petitioner's application for restoration (Form 15) of Patent No.385112 granted on 24.12.2021 and pass such other orders.

¶17

Heard Ms.V.Priya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Mr.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi learned Central Government Standing Counsel

¶20

Page No. 1 of 6

¶21

W.P.(IPD).No.25 of 2024

¶22

appearing for the respondent.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner to protect his invention had applied before the respondent and was also granted Patent with an requirement to pay the annuity by 25.03.2022. He had also made the payment to the agent which had been acknowledged by him on 12.02.2022. Therefore, the petitioner was under the impression that his Patent has been renewed.

¶24

In the interregnum, the mother of the petitioner also fell ill and died on 14.04.2023. The petitioner's younger son had also been diagnosed with autism spectra disorder. In such circumstances, he was unable to contact this agent with regard to the renewal. Only when he had filed a suit in O.S.No.911 of 2024 before the Additional City Civil Court, Bengaluru, had came to his knowledge that the Patent has not been renewed and he had to withdraw the suit and immediately thereafter, he had taken up an application for restoring his application and the same had not been accepted by the respondent. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondent to accept the petitioner's application for restoration of the Patent granted to him on 24.12.2021.

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

Page No. 2 of 6

¶27

W.P.(IPD).No.25 of 2024

¶28

She had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court,

¶29

where in similar circumstances, the Official respondent was directed to accept the said application for restoration.

¶30

The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contend that to support the reasons, the petitioner had not produced any documents whatsoever and therefore, the same is bereft of any material evidence and therefore, would request this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶31

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶32

It is an admitted case that the petitioner had filed an application for grant of Patent and was also granted the same. He had not made appropriate application within the stipulated time for renewal and therefore, he had made an application for restoration of the Patent.

¶33

I have also perused the judgment relied upon the learned counsel

¶34

appearing for the petitioner. It could be seen that what is to be protected is

¶35

the invention made by the petitioner which he seeks to be Patented. If the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

Page No. 3 of 6

¶37

W.P.(IPD).No.25 of 2024

¶38

request of the petitioner is not granted that would cause serious prejudice to him as the time and efforts for the invention would all go waste and the same would not be protected. It could be a perversity of justice on technical ground, if the claim of the petitioner is rejected.

¶39

Considering the aforesaid principle, I am inclined to allow the Writ Petition and issue the Mandamus as prayed for.

¶40

In fine, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondent is directed

¶41

to accept the petitioner’s application for restoration (form 15) of Patent No.385112 granted on 24.12.2021.

¶42

19.10.2024

¶43

Gba Index : Yes/ No Speaking Order/ Non-speaking Order

¶44

Copy to:

¶45

The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks The Controller of Patents and Designs Patent Office, IPR Building, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SIDCO Plot, GST Road,

¶46

Page No. 4 of 6

¶47

W.P.(IPD).No.25 of 2024

¶48

Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

Page No. 5 of 6

¶51

W.P.(IPD).No.25 of 2024

¶52

K.KUMARESH BABU,J.

¶53

GBA

¶54

W.P.(IPD).Nos.25 of 2024

¶55

19.10.2024.

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

Page No. 6 of 6

Balasubramanya v. the Controller General of Patents

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasubramanya v. the Controller General of Patents

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Prem Finance Corporation a Partnership Firm Vs Govindasamy Naicker and 3 others

M/s.Apna Finance India Ltd. Vs Mythili and 3 others

The Official Liquidator Vs S. Sivakumar

Versuni India Home Solutions Limited Vs the Controller of Parents and Designs

C.Krishnaveni Vs the State Rep by Its

G.Sowmiya @ Fathima Christy @ Christy Raj Vs the State of Tamil Nadu