Delhi High Court: The prayer in the writ petition was to restore petitioner’s patent application titled “Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine and Method of Blind Stitching”, Prathiba M. Singh, J.*, opined that such patent agents have a responsibility to adhere to deadlines as prescribed in the Act and the Rules and file their pleadings and attend to the matters diligently. The Court thus directed Nidhi Raman, CGSC to obtain instructions as to the manner in which the office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (‘CGPDTM’) intended to regulate or supervise the functioning of trade mark agents and patent agents.
Background
The petitioner submitted that it had filed an application through Delhi Intellectual Property LLP having its office at Delhi and one partner at the said firm was dealing with the petitioner’s patent application. The application was filed on 03-08-2019 and a request for examination was filed on 21-02-2022. The First Examination Report (‘FER’) in respect of the subject application was issued on 29-04-2022 with a direction by the Patent Office that the response should be filed within a period of six months. The petitioner contended that repeated follow ups were made on various dates particularly in March 2022, August 2022, November 2022, December 2022, and January 2023, however, it did not receive any reply from the patent agent. Later, the petitioner found out that the application was deemed to be abandoned due to non-filing of the response to the FER. The petitioner finally engaged a new patent agent and filed a request for restoring the patent application in January 2023.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court directed the patent agent of Delhi Intellectual Property LLP to file an affidavit explaining the position leading up to the abandonment of the petitioner’s patent application titled “Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine and Method of Blind Stitching”. The Court directed Nidhi Raman, CGSC to obtain instructions from the Office of CGPDTM as to the manner in which trade mark agents and patent agents ought to be regulated inasmuch as such agents have a huge responsibility of applying, registering and maintaining trade marks and patents. The Court opined that the agents also had a responsibility to adhere to deadlines as prescribed in the Act and the Rules and file their pleadings and attend to the matters diligently.
The Court opined that “in order to be able to file any patent and qualify as a patent agent, the person would have to fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Act and Rules, and also take an examination and clear the same. Such patent agents did not come within the ambit of the Bar Council of India or the Advocates’ Act, 1961”. The Court further directed Nidhi Raman, CGSC to obtain instructions as to the manner in which the office of the CGPDTM intended to regulate or supervise the functioning of trade mark agents and patent agents and a report be filed in this regard.
The matter would next be listed on 09-11-2023.
[Saurav Chaudhary v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5550, decided on 01-09-2023]
*Judgement authored by — Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Ms. Meenakshi Ogra, Mr. Rishi Vohra, Mr. Tarun Khurana and Ms Chhavi Panday, Advocates
For the Respondents: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Mr. Zubin Singh, Advocate
