RAYTHEON COMPANY Vs. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal to the High Court under the Patents Act, 1970. The order challenged in this appeal is regarding the application for Patent No. 133687 filed on November 19, 1971, by Raytheon company, of Lexington, County of Middlesex, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, United States of America. It appears that the said company is a company organised and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, United States of America. The application related to Patent in respect of what is called "Imaging System". The system is described in the words of the application, inter alia, as follows:--

(2.) After the communication to the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs by the Central Government intimating that in opinion of the Central Government the patent applied for should not be granted as mentioned hereinbefore, the Deputy Controller intimated to the appellant that the application was refused. The aforesaid order and/or communication of the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs dated July 19, 1972 is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. Appeal to the High Court is provided under Section 116 of the Patents Act, 1970, which is in the following terms:--

(3.) Counsel for the appellant contended before me, firstly, that the order in question of the Central Government was not an order in terms of Section 20 (1) of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, nor did the communication contain any direction as contemplated under Sub-section (6) of the said Act. It was submitted that there was no application of mind by the Central Government on the matters mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Sec-of Section 20, nor was any direction given as to whether the patent application was to be proceeded or not. It was urged that only the terms of the section had been quoted by the Central Government and opinion was expressed by the Central Government that the invention was not paten-table. In this connection reliance was placed on Kishori Mohan v. State of West Bengal, in support of the proposition that where there was no application of mind there was no decision given by the Central Government and as such the Controller of Patents and Designs should have ignored the purported expression of opinion by the Central Government.