Petitioner had filed a request for examination on 3″1 March, 2017 i.e., before expiry of 48 months time limit and said application was rejected principally on ground that, prescribed fee had been paid via a cheque and not in prescribed mode and manner. This was done despite fact that, Respondent No. 2 had called upon Petitioner’s agent to re-submit documents with requisite fee via a demand draft/banker’s cheque or even cash vide his communication dated 17lh March, 2017. Respondent No. 2 erred in issuing second impugned communication as he lost sight of fact that, request for examination had been made well before expiry of 48 month time limit and that it was returned only for reason that, fee was not paid in prescribed mode and manner
PATENTS
The patents of the plaintiffs are with respect to High Efficiency Advanced Audio Coding Technology. Suit for infringement of patent filed. Amendment sought  by defendant 3 & 4 under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Applicant/Defendant to the effect being not guilty of violating the patented technology of the plaintiffs under the registered patent nos. IN 230121, IN 242206, IN 264129 and IN 224775. HELD Defendants are not entitled to amend their pleadings. Such defences could always have been taken by the applicants/defendant nos. 3 and 4 at the very first stage of filing of their written statement.
PATENTS
Defendants claim that the Plaintiff is not entitled to an interim injunction for concealment of facts and material variations deserves to be rejected for the reason even if there has been amendment in the plaint, this Court has to construct the claim on the basis of what is claimed in the patent documents, as has been noted above. Further the Insecticides Registration Committee has no jurisdiction to decide on Patent registration as held in the decision reported as Shogun Organics Ltd. v. Union of India (2013) SCC Online Ker 22792. Finding by the Insecticides Registration Committee being finding of a body which has no effect on the validity of the Patent, mere non-disclosure of the finding of the Insecticides Board prinia facie cannot be held to be material suppression of facts and injunction refused on the said count.
PATENTS
The Petitioner lays no challenge to the legislative competence to make the prohibition contained in the Patent Act, 1970 and the Rules made therein. Moreover no violation of fundamental right is made out in the present case. The Petitioner having challenged the statutory provisions on the ground that no appeal is envisaged is completely misconceived. The right to file an appeal is a right which has been expressly conferred by the statute against an order passed in Rule 138 of the Rules
PATENTS