Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No.223/2010) S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member 1. This is an original application for revocation filed under section 64 read with section 117 D of the Patents Act, 1970 (herein after referred to as the Act) for revoking the patent No. 202885 dated 12-11-2002 granted to the respondent a German citizen. 2. The impugned Patent was filed on 12-11-2002 claiming the priority date 12-5-1999 and the Patent was granted on 2-2-2007 by the Patent Office after due examination of the Patent application having the title Azimuth driver for wind energy plants. The applicant is a Company registered under the Companies Act 1956, a subsidiary of ENERCON GmbH. Germany, applied for the revocation of the Patent on the following grounds. a. The subject matter of the Patent is obvious and does not involve any inventive step (Section 64 (1) f); b. The scope of the claims is not sufficiently and clearly defined. [Section 64 (1) (i)]. 3. The applicant stated that they are one of the foremost leaders i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No.224/2010) S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member 1. This is an original application for revocation filed under section 64 read with section 117 D of the Patents Act 1970 ( herein after referred to as the Act) for revoking the patent No. 201910 dated 5.12.2003 granted to the respondent a German citizen. 2. The impugned Patent was filed on 5.12.2003 having the priority date 7.6.2001 and the Patent was granted on 23.02.2007 by the Patent Office after due examination of the Patent application having the title Method for controlling a wind turbine and a wind turbine. The applicant is a Company registered under the Companies Act 1956, a subsidiary of ENERCON GmbH. Germany applied for the revocation of the Patent on the following grounds. a. The subject matter of the Patent stands anticipated (section 64 (1) e); b. The subject matter of the Patent is obvious and does not involve any inventive step [Section 64 (1)( f)]; c. The claimed subject is not an invention as per section 3 (k) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Order: (148 of 2013) Prabha Sridevan, Chairman Two Larger Benches of the IPAB were constituted recently to decide two issues one relating to the IPABs power to review its own order and the other relating to IPABs power to grant interim orders pending final application. In both, we had to consider the importance of this Tribunal and the nature of its jurisdiction, power and authority. This order relates to the power to grant interim orders. 2. The applicant in ORA.No. 7 of 2012 moved an Application for interim stay of the registration of the respondents Trade Mark on the ground that it was obtained by fraud. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant relied upon various decisions of the Court earlier, wherein interim stay was granted. He also referred to INDIAN BANK Vs. SATYAM FIBRES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (AIR1996 Supreme Court 2592) and GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS (AIR 1981 Supreme Court 606) in support of his contention that every Trib...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
HONBLE SHRI (DR.) P.C. CHAKRABORTI, TECHNICAL MEMBER: By this order we dispose of five appeal Nos. TA/1 to 5/2007/PT/CH and miscellaneous petition Nos. 1 to 5/2007 in TA/1 to 5/2007/PT/CH filed by the appellant seeking stay of operation of the impugned orders and miscellaneous petition No.33/2008 in TA/1/2007/PT/CH filed by the respondent No.3. This common order is being passed because the above five appeals are preferred by a single Appellant against the five almost identical orders passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs deciding five pre-grant oppositions to the grant of a patent to the Appellant and in all the five appeals the issues are almost identical and the appeals were heard together. 2. BACKGROUND The Appellant, a Swiss pharmaceutical company engaged in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical and medicinal products including anti-cancer drugs, filed an application for patent on 17.7.1998 claiming Switzerland priority date of 18.7.1997 for an invention ti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Order (No. 54 of 2013) D.P.S. Parmar, Technical Member: This is an application for revocation of the patent No.196341 (Invention in short) granted to Alloys Wobben for the invention A Device for transmitting Electrical Energy From a Generator. 2. From the records in Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), it was observed that this matter was heard by the earlier Board on 5th October, 2010 and orders were reserved. Since the Hon'ble Technical Member Shri Chandrasekaran retired on 2nd December, 2010, decision was not issued. So this case was listed to be heard again. In the meantime, the matter was transferred to the new counsel for the respondents. On completion of all the formalities, the matter was heard on 20.02.2012 to 22.02.2012. 3. Learned counsel Mr. R. Parthasarathy appeared for the applicant and learned counsel Mr. Praveen Anand represented the respondent. Both the counsel, besides arguing the matter at length, has also filed their written submissions on the preliminary i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No.162 of 2013) Mrs. Prabha Sridevan, Chairman This application is for revocation of Patent No. 221017 titled Bicyclic Heteroaromatic Compounds on the grounds of obviousness, insufficiency of description, non-patentability and non-disclosure under Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970. Indian Patent No: 221017 was derived from a patent application as a PCT application designating India. It claimed a first priority date from a GB application 9800569.7 dated 12-1-1998. FER was issued on 6-6-2006. Patent was granted on 11-6-2008. 2. But before we begin the discussion relating to the case itself, we would like to comment upon the written submissions that are filed by the counsel. We usually permit filing of written submissions in addition to oral submissions. The written submissions supplement the notes that we have recorded during the hearing. It would be better if they are brief, and to the point and indicate in a clear and concise manner the points raised and relate it to the releva...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No.238 of 2010) S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member 1. This is an original application for revocation filed under section 64 read with section 117 D of the Patents Act 1970 ( herein after referred to as the Act) for revoking the patent No. 200280 dated 1.10.1998 granted to Mr. ALOYS WOBBEN, the respondent, a German citizen. 2. The impugned Patent was filed on 1.10.1998 claiming the priority date 2.10.1997 and the Patent was granted on 19.5.2006 by the Patent Office after due examination of the Patent application having the title A rotor blade. The applicant is a Company registered under the Companies Act 1956, a subsidiary of ENERCON GmbH. Germany applied for the revocation of the Patent on the following grounds. a. The subject matter of the Patent is obvious and does not involve any inventive step (Section 64 (1) f); b. The claims do not clearly define the scope of the invention. [Section 64 (1) (i)]. 3. The applicant stated that they are one of the foremost leaders in the wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No.242 of 2010) S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member 1. This is an original application for revocation filed under section 64 read with section 117 D of the Patents Act 1970 ( herein after referred to as the Act) for revoking the patent No. 202912 dated 16.09.2003 granted to the respondent a German citizen. 2. The impugned Patent was filed on 16.09.2003 claiming the priority date 17.3.2001 and the Patent was granted on 2.2.2007 by the Patent Office after due examination of the Patent application having the title Method for Controlling a Wind Power Installation and a Wind Power Installation. The applicant is a Company registered under the Companies Act 1956, a subsidiary of ENERCON GmbH. Germany applied for the revocation of the Patent on the following grounds. a. The subject matter of the Patent is obvious and does not involve any inventive step [Section 64 (1)( f)]; b. The claims do not clearly define the scope of the invention. [Section 64 (1) (i)]. c. The complete specif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Order: (147 of 2013) Prabha Sridevan, Chairman Two Larger Benches of the IPAB were constituted recently to decide two issues one relating to the IPABs power to review its own order and the other relating to IPABs power to grant interim orders pending or final application. In both, we had to consider the importance of this Tribunal and the nature of its jurisdiction, power and authority. This order relates to the power of review. 2. While hearing the review petition No.1 of 2011 in O.R.A.No. 42 of 2008/TM/CH, we referred the question whether the IPAB has the power to review its own order to a larger Bench by order dated 03.05.2013. Initially review petitions were entertained by IPAB and orders had been passed. After 2006 Review Petitions were not numbered since the then Chairman Honble Justice M.H.S.Ansari was of the opinion that in the absence of specific powers to entertain the review petitions, review petitions must not be numbered. However, when certain matters were filed seeking re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No.18 of 2013) HONBLE SMT. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN, CHAIRMAN This application along with others between the same parties was heard by another Bench of the IPAB. Orders were reserved. The then Technical member retired before the orders were pronounced. So the cases were listed to be heard again. This application is for revocation of the patent No.198648 (Invention in short). 2. Mr. R. Parthasarathy appeared for the applicant and Mr. Praveen Anand represented the respondent. Both the learned counsel, besides arguing the matter at length, have also filed their written submissions on the preliminary issue as well as on merits. Preliminary objections by respondent Locus-standi 3. A Preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent herein questioning the locus-standi of the applicant to move the revocation application as a person interested under S.64 of the Patents Act, 1970.(Act in short) .This question has already been decided against the respondent by this Board in the cases ...
Tag this Judgment!