Madras High Court
Ibrum Technologies vs The Controller Of Patents on 1 February, 2024
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
(T) CMA(PT) No.41 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.02.2024
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
(T) CMA(PT) No.41 of 2023
(OA/19/2020/PT/CHN)
Ibrum Technologies
Site No.15, Top Floor, II Cross, Vinayaka Layout
Opp. to SGR Dental College, Munnekolala
Marathahalli, Bengaluru - 560 037. .... Appellant
Vs
The Controller of Patents
Boudhik Sampada Bhavan
Anna Salai, Guindy Industrial Estate
SIDCO Industrial Estate
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. ..... Respondent
Prayer : Transferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 117A
of the Patent Act, 1970 against the order dated 11.03.2020 passed by the
Controller of Patents and Designs in the matter of the Patent Application
No.201841038461.
For Appellant : Mr.S.P.Vijayaragavan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Diwakar
Central Govt. Senior Panel Counsel
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(T) CMA(PT) No.41 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein claims that it has invented a novel Intelligent Indoor Air
Quality Monitoring, Controlling, and Alerting System for domestic use.
This Court is informed that it is a package invention involving multiple
branches of science. The appellant had made its application on 10.10.2018
with ten claims, and it came to be dismissed by the Controller vide her
proceedings dated 11.03.2020. This proceedings is now under challenge,
essentially on the ground that the Appellant's Attorney could not complete
his oral submissions before the Controller.
2. Pursuant to the application made, the respondent came out with an First
Examination Report (FER) on 27.11.2018, with three prior documents (D1 to
D3) objecting to the appellant's prayer for grant of patent. The appellant had
replied to the FER. This was followed by a hearing notice dated 16.08.2019.
The appellant had filed its written submissions to the same. On 15.10.2019,
the appellant was allotted oral hearing for 30 minutes between 11.00 a.m. to
11.30 a.m., It was a virtual hearing, and the appellant counsel was heard till
11.30 a.m., and sharp at 11.30 a.m., and midway through the arguments of
the counsel for the appellant, the virtual hearing got snapped. At around
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.40 a.m. that date, the appellant counsel has sent an email to the Patent
Controller informing it. Thereafter, the appellant had filed its written
submission as required under Rule 28(7) of the Patent Rules. After
evaluating the same, the Patent Controller came to the conclusion that the
appellant's invention does not comply with the requirements under Sections
2(1)(ja), 3(k) and 10 of the Patents Act, 1970, and rejected the same.
3. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant made a fervent
plea that if only the appellant's counsel was allowed to complete his
arguments, there is a fair chance that he would have convinced the Controller
about the novelty of its invention. The counsel for the respondent submitted
that all the opportunities which the statute required to extend to the appellant,
has indeed been extended, and the appellant has also filed its written
submissions under Rule 28(7).
4. Without any intent to set the present case as a precedent, the appellant
would be given 15 minutes additional time to present his case. This Court
expects the Controller to refresh her memory to the entire facts of this case
and be ready for the hearing, in order, the appellant's counsel could complete
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
his/her argument within 15 minutes, and thereby deny him/her an opportunity
to make a complaint later along the similar lines. The submissions of the
appellant should direct on explaining anything that is not there in the written
submissions made under Rule 28(7) to the extent it is required to be made.
The appellant is also granted another opportunity to file its written
submissions under Rule 28(7), and if in the eventuality of the appellant's
inability to complete the arguments yet again, then whatever it considers as
ought to have been argued, may figure in its written submissions to be filed
under Rule 28(7).
5. To conclude, the appeal is allowed, and the order of the Patent Controller
dated 11.03.2020 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the same Patent
Controller for complying with what is indicated in the last preceding
paragraph. The appellant is free to introduce any amendments to its ten
claims that it had made in its application dated 10.10.2018, if it feels
necessary in the course of its hearing. No costs.
01.02.2024
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
ds
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
The Controller of Patents
Boudhik Sampada Bhavan
Anna Salai, Guindy Industrial Estate
SIDCO Industrial Estate
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SESHASAYEE.J.,
ds
(OA/19/2020/PT/CHN)
01.02.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
