In the case of France Telecom v. Union of India, the Madras High Court allowed France Telecom’s writ petition (“Petitioner”), setting aside the orders by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs (“Respondent”) that rejected its patent application examination request due to procedural delays. The Court directed the respondent to accept and process the petitioner’s request for examination in accordance with the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, and the rules framed thereunder.
France Telecom filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after the Indian patent office returned its request for examination, citing that the statutory 48-month deadline under Section 11B(4) of the Patents Act, 1970, had lapsed. The petitioner argued that the delay was caused by an error on the part of its Indian agent and not due to any lack of diligence on its part. It relied on precedents, including a Delhi High Court judgment in European Union Represented by the European Commission v. Union of India and a report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce, which suggested leniency in exceptional cases where agents’ errors resulted in delays.
The respondent argued that the application was statutorily deemed withdrawn under Section 11B(4) and could not be entertained. The Court, however, accepted the petitioner’s plea, holding that procedural lapses caused by the agent should not deprive the petitioner of its valuable statutory rights. Applying equitable principles from prior judgments, the Court concluded that the error constituted an exceptional circumstance.
The impugned orders dated May 3, 2011, and October 13, 2011, were set aside. The Court directed the Deputy Controller of Patents to accept the petitioner’s application and process it in accordance with the law.
Citation: France Telecom v. Union of India, W.P. No. 4958 of 2012 (H.C. Madras Oct. 30, 2024). Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/169231622/
Authored by Gaurav Mishra, BananaIP Counsels
Disclaimer
The case note in this blog post has been generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the same has been reviewed by the IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.
