Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Section 116 of the Patents Act, 1970
  • Section 116 of the Patents Act, as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2006
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Section 116 of the Patents Act, 1970
  • Section 116 of the Patents Act, as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2006
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The matter arose due to the absence of a Technical Member in the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) constituted under Section 116 of the Patents Act, 1970. On 2-4-2007, the Central Government appointed S. Chandrasekaran as Technical Member (Patent) of the IPAB. On 3-4-2007, 2-4-2007 was notified as the transfer date for appeals pending before High Courts to the IPAB, and the High Court transferred the appeals by order dated 4-4-2007.

On 16-6-2007, Respondent 4 filed Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 1 and 2 of 2007 before the IPAB seeking appointment of another Technical Member in place of S. Chandrasekaran, alleging that he had earlier filed an affidavit taking a position bearing directly on the dispute. The Supreme Court addressed the situation in the context of appeals concerning crystal modification of an N-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative and patentability of the process and product.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

  • Respondent 4 sought appointment of another Technical Member in place of S. Chandrasekaran on the ground that he had previously filed an affidavit taking a position directly bearing on the dispute.
  • Both sides accepted the name of Dr P.C Chakraborti to act as Technical Member in the concerned appeals.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court considered the circumstances arising from the lack of a Technical Member and emphasized that the controversy before the IPAB involved complicated patent questions concerning crystal modification of an N-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, including patentability of both process and product. On that basis, it held that such disputes need to be resolved by the IPAB with a Technical Member.

In the specific facts of the case and expressly stating that the order should not be treated as a precedent for future cases, the Court called for a panel/list of Controllers qualified under Section 116 of the Patents Act (as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2006). From the list, the Court selected Dr P.C Chakraborti, Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs (MSc (Chemistry) and PhD), to be included in the reconstituted IPAB for hearing the specified transferred appeals. The Court also made directions on scheduling, the manner of hearing (day-to-day), and the limited tenure and remuneration terms applicable to Dr Chakraborti for these appeals.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF: Leave was granted and the civil appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs, with directions to reconstitute the IPAB to include Dr P.C Chakraborti as Technical Member for Appeals Nos. TA/001/2007/PT/CH to TA/005/2007/PT/CH.

The direct effect was to ensure that the pending transferred patent appeals would be heard and decided by a duly reconstituted IPAB with a Technical Member, with preliminaries to be completed in October 2008, listing for directions on 3-11-2008, and a preference for hearing in November 2008 on a day-to-day basis. Dr P.C Chakraborti was appointed as a special-case member only for these appeals, with specified remuneration and service protections; the Court expressly stated the order was not to be treated as a precedent for future cases.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Natco Pharma Limited v. Union Of India And Others

    Order

    1. Leave granted. A piquant situation has arisen in this case on account of absence of Technical Member in the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (the IPAB) constituted under the provisions of Section 116 of the Patents Act, 1970.

    2. On 2-4-2007, the Central Government appointed S. Chandrasekaran as Technical Member (Patent) of the IPAB vide notification of even date. On 3-4-2007, notification was issued notifying 2-4-2007 as the date for transfer of appeals pending before any High Court to the IPAB. The appeals were transferred to the IPAB by the High Court vide its order dated 4-4-2007.

    3. On 16-6-2007, Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 1 and 2 of 2007 were filed by Respondent 4 herein before the IPAB praying for the appointment of another Technical Member in place of S. Chandrasekaran on the ground that the said Member had earlier filed an affidavit in the matter taking a particular position in the dispute which has a direct bearing on the case in hand.

    4. It is under these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and, particularly, in view of the fact that the controversy involved before IPAB is concerning crystal modification of a N-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative and since the dispute is regarding patentability of the process as well as the product that we are of the view that such complicated disputes need to be resolved by IPAB which must have a Technical Member in it.

    5. In the above facts and circumstances of this case only and without making our order a precedent for future cases, we called for a panel/list of Controllers duly qualified under Section 116 of the Patents Act, as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2006. From that list submitted to us, we have opted for the name of Dr P.C Chakraborti, Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, who holds postgraduate degree of MSc (Chemistry) as well as PhD.

    6. We, accordingly, direct that all preliminaries will be completed by the parties in the month of October 2008 and the IPAB duly reconstituted under our orders, which would include Dr P.C Chakraborti, would hear and decide the pending Appeals Nos. TA/001/2007/PT/CH to TA/005/2007/PT/CH preferably in the month of November 2008. We direct the IPAB to list the above appeals before it for directions on 3-11-2008. The matter will be heard and disposed of on day-to-day basis.

    7. As a special case, Dr P.C Chakraborti will continue to be the Member of the said Board till the hearing and final disposal of the said appeals. He will be the Member of the IPAB only for the said appeals. He will be paid remuneration payable to the Technical Member of the IPAB, namely, salary of Rs 86,286 per month with other perquisites as mentioned in the annexure to this order. This annexure has been given to us by the Union of India. It is also made clear that Dr P.C Chakraborti, who is presently Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, will not be entitled to draw his salary for the aforestated period as Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs but he would be entitled to protection of his seniority and other incidental benefits.

    8. We hope that the Board would preferably dispose of the appeals within one month, if possible, from the date of the commencement of hearing. Both sides have accepted the name of Dr P.C Chakraborti to act as Technical Member in the above appeals.

    9. The civil appeals are disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Natco Pharma Limited v. Union Of India And Others
    (Oct 1, 2008)