This article is written by Avinash Pandey of NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, Mumbai.
Controller under the Patents Act
The Patent Act, 1970 and the Patent Rules, 2003 specify the General Responsibilities of the Controllers of Patent in India. The Patent Act of 1970 and the Patent Rules of 2003 require the Controller of Patents to work in accordance with the aforementioned requirements and adhere to the aforementioned standards. The Controllers of Patent, appointed in accordance with the Patent Act of 1970, is the principal officer in charge of overseeing the management of the intellectual property system in India. To provide the greatest service delivery to the ordinary people requesting for intellectual registration in India, the General Responsibilities of the Controller of Patent are maintained broadly.
The Controllers General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks is the person referred to as “Controller” in Section 73(1) of the Act. The Controllers General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks is appointed by the Government in accordance with Section 3 of the Trademarks Act, 1999[1]. For the objectives of the Patents Act of 1970, the individual so chosen by the government pursuant to the Trademarks Act of 1999 will serve as the Controller of Patents. Examiners and other necessary officers with designations may also be appointed by the Central Government as it sees suitable. Under the direction and supervision of such Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks, as well as those duties of the Controllers of Patent under the Patent Act, the officials thus nominated by the Central Government, should carry out their duties.
According to the Patents Act of 1970, the Controllers of Patents has the following general authority:
The Controller of Patents has the exclusive authority of a Civil Court to hear any action brought under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in any proceedings brought against him/her per Section 77 of the Patents Act, 1970 as well as Rule 136 of the Patent Rules, 2003. (Act No. 5 of 1908). The following are the instances in which the Controllers has civil court authority:
Requiring and calling someone to appear, then questioning them under oath;
Requesting the production of any documentation and its detection;
Obtaining certain proof for affidavits;
Creating commissions to interview witnesses and review documents; Allocating costs;
Reviewing and changing his or her own choice regarding an application submitted by any individual within the allotted time frame and in the allotted way;
Revocation of an ex-parte decision upon application made only within allotted time and in the allotted way.
Granting Fees
The powers of the Controller of Patents encompass awarding costs in accordance with Section 77(1)(e) of the Patent Act of 1970 and Rules 63 and 136 of the Patent Rules of 2003. Any awarding of costs order made by the Controllers of Patent in the course of exercising the general authority granted to him/her would be enforceable as a judgement of a civil court. The Controller of Patent shall determine whether costs are appropriate in each civil matter that comes before him or her after considering all the relevant circumstances and situations. However, the Controllers of Patent may not award more in expenses than what is set forth in the Fourth Schedule for any item covered by that schedule.
Inspection
The Controller of Patents under Section 77(1)(f) of the Patents Act, 1970 and Rule 130 of the Patents Regulations, 2003 includes examination as the general powers of the Controller of Patents in India. Reviews are submitted as requested on Forms 4, 24. Section 114 of the 1908 CPC and Order XLVII also relate to the general powers of the administrator of re-examinations patents. A person who is prejudiced by a proclamation or order of the Controller of Patents and is entitled to appeal but not to be appealed or who is not entitled to any material evidence, new evidence, or to which he or she is implicated. Persons interested in discovering matters that were not known or could not be made to the application entitled to due diligence at the time of adoption or issuance of the statute or order, or of obvious error or error; or otherwise satisfactorily contrary to the order or order/desired order issued by her, she may apply to the Commissioner of Patents for analysis of the order or order. An application for an evaluation of the Controller of Patent’s decision under Section 77(1)(f) of the Patent Act of 1970 must be made within one month of the date the decision was communicated to the applicant, or within any additional time the Controller of Patent could very well grant upon request, provided that additional time does not exceed one month. A declaration outlining the legitimate grounds for the request for review from the applicant must be submitted with the request for review. If there are any parties other than the applicant involved in the judgement, the Controller of Patents must immediately send each party a copy of the application and statement.
Request for Omission and Irregularity
The Controllers of Patent has always had the authority to revise and eliminate any inconsistency in any document per Rule 137 of Patent Regulations, 2003. The case Nippon Steel Corporation v. Union of India is relevant to Rule 37 of the Patent Regulations, 2003. Any document for which the Patent Act of 1970 does not make special provisions or amendments may be changed, and any procedural irregularity that, in the perception of the Controller of Patent, can be eliminated without harming the interests of any person may be corrected, if appropriate, on the terms that the Controller of Patent deems appropriate.
Patented Inventor Mention
In accordance with Rules 57 to 63 and 66 to 70 of 2003 Patent Rules, as well as Section 28 of the Patent Act of 1970. If a claim or demand is created in accordance with the guidelines in the aforementioned Section and the Controller of Patents is convinced that the person making the claim or demand is the inventor of the invention for which a patent application has been submitted, or of a significant portion of that invention, the Controller of Patents will grant the claim or request. The fact that he or she applied for a patent directly indicates that they are the inventors of an invention. As a result, the Controller of Patents must, subject to the provisions of Section above, arrange for him or her to be credited as the creator of a creation in any patent granted as a result of the application for grant of a patent, both in the complete specification and within the Registration of Patents. Such claim or request shall be accompanied by something like a statement describing the circumstances giving rise to the claim or request. Any rights under the patent, however, are not conferred or diminished by the mention of any individual as an inventor under this section. If the person claiming to be the creator of the innovation is not the candidate seeking grant of Patent or is one of the applicants, the appellant of the request and that individual should make the request in the way specified by the client of the request for the Patent.
Direction not specified
Under Rule 128 of the Patents Regulations 2003, the Controller has specific instructions not required by the Patents Act 1970 and the Patents Regulations 2003, the 1970 Act or the Patents Regulations 2003. Taking any steps, filing the necessary documents and providing the necessary evidence, for which no specific provisions are set out in the Patents Act 1970 or the Patents Regulations 2003, would be very difficult for a party to such proceedings. It is important. The Commissioner may, by written notice, require such party to take any necessary action, furnish documents and produce any required documentation named in such written apprehension. If a party or plaintiff in a civil action wishes or demand to be tried or not to be tried at any time, the Commissioner of Patents may at any time file a written statement requesting that it include all the information requested by the Commissioner. increase. Obtain patents as required within time limits set by the Commissioner of Patents.
Exercise of Management Discretion
Section 80 of the Patents Act 1970 and Rules 129, 129A of the Patents Regulations 2003 set out the general powers of the Controller in exercising his discretionary powers. Patent administrators should give parties an opportunity to be heard before acting against them. Discretion is exercised by the Controller with discretion and due diligence, not arbitrarily. Any such reasons given by the claimant should be considered with care or diligence, and all such argument should be recorded on the file by the Controller. A party needing a hearing must submit a demand for such a hearing to the Commissioner at least ten days before the expiration of the civil proceeding. Before exercising any discretionary capability under the Patents Act 1970 or the Patents Regulations 2003 that may adversely affect any party or applicant for Notice of such hearing must be given to the person to hear such party or applicant. A party to the proceedings or patent applicant files a request for adjournment of detecting with good cause at least three days before her date of hearing for the request for adjournment, along with the prescribed fee itemized in the First Schedule. can do. By the Patent Administrator.
Controller permission to fix misspellings
Section 78 of the Patents Act, 1970, and Rules 122 and 124 of the Patents Regulations, 2003, provide general powers for patent administrators to correct clerical errors.
Notwithstanding Sections 57 and 59 of the Patents Act 1970, subject to the provisions made by Section 44 of the Patents Act 1970, a patent or complete patent specification or notwithstanding any provisions relating to requests for amendment of other relevant documents, the Controller may correct clerical errors in a patent application or provisional application pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph. He may complete the specification of any patent or other document filed pursuant to or in such patent application or may complete any errors in subject matter entered in the Patent Register. Correction of errors may be made upon written request from an interested party in accordance with the section above and may be formed with or without a prescribed fee.
Bibliography
Aishwarya Says:
Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening