COD No. 4/2014 in SR No. 221/2013/PT/KOL. Case: Alstom Technology Limited Vs The Controller General of Patents & Designs and Ors.. Intellectual Propery Appellate Board Cases

Case NumberCOD No. 4/2014 in SR No. 221/2013/PT/KOL
Party NameAlstom Technology Limited Vs The Controller General of Patents & Designs and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: Aparna Gaur and For Respondents: Sunil Singhania, Central Govt. Standing Counsel
JudgesK.N. Basha, J. (Chairman) and D.P.S. Parmar, Member (T)
IssueLimitation Act, 1963 - Sections 2, 5; Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 117A(4), 117B; Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 84, 87, 92, 95, 96
Judgement DateAugust 12, 2015
CourtIntellectual Propery Appellate Board Cases

Order:

K.N. Basha, J. (Chairman), (Circuit Bench Sitting At Kolkata)

(No. 187 of 2015)

  1. Ms. Aparna Gaur, the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and Mr. Sunil Singhania, the learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel are present before us today.

  2. This condonation of delay petition is filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 84 days in preferring the appeal filed against the order of the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Kolkata dated 14/12/2012 rejecting the petitioner's patent application No. 877/KOL/200 filed on 23/09/2005.

  3. The petitioner is a foreign company and it is specifically stated in the petition that they on receipt of the order requested their advocate to prefer an appeal and thereafter the grounds of appeal were formulated and drafted and forwarded to the concerned person for obtaining approval from the overseas authority and on receipt of the approval and finalizing the grounds of appeal, there was intermittent vacation and ultimately the appeal was preferred on 06/06/2013 resulting in a delay of 84 days.

  4. Ms. Aparna Gaur, the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner would contend that the petitioner is a foreign company situated at Switzerland and soon after the receipt of the impugned order, the petitioner requested their counsel to prefer an appeal and after deliberation, consultation and finalization of the grounds of appeal, the same was sent to the overseas authority and after obtaining the approval, and after the intermittent vacation, the appeal was preferred which process resulted in the delay of 84 days. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner would contend that the delay is neither willful nor wanton but only due to the above said reasons.

  5. Mr. Sunil Singhania, the learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel would contend that the petitioner has not assigned any reasons in the petition filed for condoning the delay. It is contented that in the absence of valid reasons given by the petitioner the condone delay petition is liable to be dismissed.

  6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the petition.

  7. At the outset it is to be stated that the petitioner is a foreign company situated from Switzerland. It is seen that the impugned order was passed on 14th December 2012 and the period of limitation was computed for filing the appeal by the petitioner from the date of the impugned order, viz., 14th December 2012. At this juncture we have to state that we have held recently in IPAB Order No. 86 and 87 in SR No. 350/2014/PT/DEL & SR No. 312/2014/PT/DEL in Microsoft Corporation, USA v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, New Delhi that the period of limitation is to be computed from the date of receipt of the order and in such an event, we have to give concession of the said period for preferring the appeal.

  8. As far as the instant matter is concerned, it is categorically stated by the petitioner in the petition that soon after the receipt of the impugned order dated 14/12/2012, they made a request to their counsel to prefer an appeal. The statement made in para 3 of the petition indicates that only after the receipt of the impugned order, they have taken steps to prefer an appeal and not from the date of order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Kolkata on 14/12/2012. It is also specifically stated in the petition that they have to draft the grounds of appeal and thereafter to forward the same to the concerned official for obtaining approval from the overseas authority and thereafter the said approval was received only on 17/05/2013 and thereafter they have finalized and formulated the grounds of appeal and during the said process there is a delay of 84 days in preferring the appeal. Therefore, it is very clear that the petitioner has assigned valid reasons and as such we are unable to countenance the...

To continue reading

Request your trial