ALOYS WOBBEN ARGESTRASSE Vs. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.No.17539 of 2011 has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the order, dated 2nd December, 2010, passed by the first respondent in its proceedings ORA No.11/2009/PT/CH and quash the same and consequently, direct the third respondent to restore/reinstate the petitioners' patent No.IN202912 on the Register of Patents in the event that the same is removed subsequent to the filing of the present writ petition.

(2.) With the same prayer, challenging the similar proceedings, of course with different numbers, other writ petitions have been filed by the very same petitioner. Since all these writ petitions are interconnected on facts and issues, they have been heard together and are given joint disposal by this Common Order.

(3.) The pivotal issue that looms large before us at this stage is the jurisdiction and its extent of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in entertaining an application filed under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. To be precise, we are only concerned at this stage with the jurisdiction of intellectual property to decide the validity of an authorisation to come to the conclusion that an agent is duly authorised. While we embark upon this exercise, we intend to keep away from the factual issues surrounding the case except to the extent required. We adopt this process as we do not wish to arrogate ourself to the position of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, if we are to hold that it does have the said power and therefore, failed to exercise it. We are also conscious about the fact that we are exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence, it is prudent to relegate the exercise of validity of the document of authorisation to the authority which is required to do so.