Sphaera Pharma, Pte. Ltd. And Anr. Vs Union Of India

Delhi High Court Decides upon Delay in Filing a Patent Examination Request

Introduction

The question regarding the condonation of delay in the filing a request for examination of a patent application was once again decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sphaera Pharma, Pte. Ltd. And Anr.Vs Union Of India. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru decided upon the issue pertaining to the limitation period for the examination of a patent application prescribed under the Patents Act, 1970 (“Act”).

Facts

Sphaera Pharma (the Petitioner), claimed that they had developed some new compounds which were useful in the treatment of cancer. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed a patent application (no.3114/DEl/2012) with the Indian patent office on 05.10.2012. Accordingly, the Petitioner was also required to file a request for the examination of the patent application within 48 months from the date of filing the initial patent application.

The Petitioner had also filed Form 30 with respect to the Patent Application so that the request for examination could be taken on record. However, the said request was not uploaded due to some technical reasons and as a result the patent application was shown as abandoned under Section 11B of the Act. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a review petition for its patent application which was not considered by the Patent Office. The Petitioner, aggrieved by the Patent Office, filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court for the restoration of the Patent application. The Petitioner contented that the Controller of Patents had the power under Rule 138 of the Patent Rules, 2003 (“Rules”) to extend the prescribed time period, for filing a patent examination request, for a period of one month.

Analysis

The Court critically examined the language of Section 11B of the Act along with Rule 24B of the Rules and held that a plain reading of both the provisions clearly depict that there is no scope for consideration of any application for examination which is filed beyond the prescribed time period (48 Months) from the date of filing of the Patent application.

The Petitioner’s contention regarding power of the Controller of Patents under Rule 138 was rejected by the Court. In this regard, the Court held that a plain reading of Rule 138 would clearly show that the power of the Patent Controller to extend the prescribed time period under the said Rule does not extend to the time prescribed under Rule 24B as it expressly excludes sub-rules (1), (5) and (6) of Rule 24B. The court also opined that even if Rule 138 is ignored, no recourse is available to the Petitioner under Rule 138 as, according to Rule 138(2), it only applies to the examination requests which are made before the expiry of the prescribed time period. In the present case, the Petitioner had not made any such examination request within 48 months from the date of filing of the Patent application.

Thereafter, the Court took reference to a previous judgement in the case of Nippon Steel Corporation v. Union of India, wherein there was an error in entering the priority date of the Patent. The relevant excerpt of the judgement is below:

“There is a logic to the time limits set out under the Act. The scheme of the Act and the Rules require time-bound steps to be taken by applicants for grant of patent at various stages. The provisions of the Act and the Rules have to expressly reflect the legislative intent to permit relaxation of time limits, absent which such relaxation cannot be read into’ the provisions by a High Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In other words, it is not possible for this Court to accept the submission of the learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner that the time-limits under Section 11-B(1) of the Act read with Rule 24-B of the Rules, notwithstanding Section 11-B(4) of the Act, are merely directory and not mandatory. In fact, the wording of Section 11-B(4) of the Act underscores the mandatory nature of the time limit for filing an RFE in terms of Section 11-B(1) of the Act read with Rule 24-B of the Rules.”

The Court discussed the Nippon case judgment and clarified that the time-limit prescribed under the Act for filing a Patent examination request is mandatory in nature and cannot be relaxed under any circumstances.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court has re-affirmed the issue regarding time limit for filing a request for examination of a Patent application. The Court has clarified that the time limit of 48 months is mandatory in nature and must be adhered to regardless of the delay caused due to any technical reason, any error in entering the priority date for the Patent or due to any other reason. The time limits are prescribed for a purpose and thus they must be followed by the applicants strictly. However, considering the problems which arise due to technical reasons, there must some alternate recourse available to the applicants for filing the request for examination of Patent application after the termination of the prescribed time period.

Author: Harshit Dave, intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at swapnils@khuranaandkhurana.com.

References:

[1] 2011 (46) PTC 122 (Del)

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010