RAJESH KUMAR BANKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS AND ARGUMENTS: The writ petitioner invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by challenging an order dated 19th August, 2011 passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board ("the Board"). It was passed on an application under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, by Patel Brothers, the sixth respondent. The writ petitioner says he has no other remedy. No such provision is provided in the said Act. This contention is not disputed by learned counsel for the private respondents. The subject matter of this writ application is a "Sealing Device" used amongst other purposes to prevent or detect pilferage of electricity. Both the petitioner and the private respondents manufacture this product. There is evidence to show that this kind of a "Sealing Device" is also known in the United States of America, the date of grant of patent in that country being 21st July, 1998, in respect of US patent 5782153.

(2.) I will now describe the "Sealing Device" along with some very vital facts. On 07th August, 2001 Tara Chand Banka, the father of the writ petitioner filed an application before the Controller of Patents for obtaining a patent in respect of a security seal allegedly invented by him. He died on 18th April, 2005. On 02nd June, 2006 the patent (patent no. 200041) applied for, was granted. The petitioner is his son and legal representative. The reason why the petitioner and the private respondents are at loggerheads is that, as I have understood from the submissions made by learned counsel, the electricity companies are monopoly buyers of this product. They are very strict. They will not buy a product which is not patented.

(3.) IN the said order of the Board dated 19th August, 2011, it was said that the writ petitioner's product lacked novelty as it was "taught" by the US prior art. Hence, the application for revocation of grant made by Patel Brothers was allowed .