ALOYS WOBBEN Vs. YOGESH MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only issue we are called upon to grapple with is: should the respondents/the original defendants be permitted to continue the prosecution of proceedings for revocation of patents instituted by them, before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (in short 'IPAB') when, purportedly, they have elected to prosecute their counter claims for revocation of the very same patents, in the suits for infringement, filed by the appellant, who is the original plaintiff.

(2.) Before we proceed further, it may be useful to very briefly sketch out the relevant circumstances which have led to the institution of the captioned appeal. For the sake of convenience we would be referring to the parties before us, by their name with the exception that the respondents collectively would continue to be referred as such.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the revocation petitions preferred with the IPAB, in the year 2009 alone, are nineteen (19) in number. It is also not in dispute that on 02.03.2010, Dr. Wobben raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the revocation petition(s) on the ground that Mr Yogesh Mehra, did not have the requisite authority to prefer the said revocation petitions on behalf of EIL. This objection was taken by instituting miscellaneous petitions before IPAB, in which, Dr. Wobben, raised a preliminary objection to the locus standi of Yogesh Mehra to prefer the aforementioned revocation petitions. These miscellaneous petitions were evidently dismissed by the IPAB vide its order dated 22.7.2010; primarily, on <FRM>JUDGEMENT_91_ILRDLH22_2012_1.html</FRM>