PRABHA SRIDEVAN - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against order passed on 31st May, 2011 and "related orders dated 31st August, 2007". The order dated 31st May, 2011 is an order passed in a Review Petition filed to review the orders passed on 30th August, 2007.
(2.) THE invention relates to "quinazoline derivative" of Formula I. According to the inventor, this invention will be used for treatment of cancer. The application was filed on 19th April, 1996. The respondent No. 1 filed a pre -grant opposition on 6th February, 2006. The matter was listed for hearing on 13th June, 2006. But subsequently it was heard on 18th July, 2006. Before orders were passed, another pre -grant opposition was filed by respondent No. 2 on 21st November, 2006 for which hearing was filed on 26th March, 2007. By order dated 30th August, 2007, both the pre -grant oppositions were accepted and the grant was refused.
(3.) ON 19th November, 2007, the appellant filed review petition against both the orders. Hearing was granted and it was heard on 25th November, 2009 by order dated 31st May, 2011 both the review petitions were dismissed. Thereafter the present appeal was filed against these orders. Before going into the submissions and merits of the matter, we would like to impress upon the Controllers in the IP Office that it is desirable to pass orders as early as possible after the hearing has been completed. In the present case, written submissions in the 1st respondent's opposition were filed on 18th August, 2006. The 2nd respondent had filed their pre -grant opposition three months thereafter. If it is possible, it is better that after the hearing is concluded, orders are passed within three months. We have already noted in our orders dated 21/09/2012 in ORA/46/2004/TM/DEL that orders must be pronounced as early as possible. We have referred to the judgement in Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318. We find that fourteen months interval between the date on which the appellant filed their written arguments and the date on which orders were passed in the review does not appear to be justified. We are also unable to understand why the appellant took four months to file their written submissions. It is preferable that written submissions come simultaneously at the time of oral arguments or at the latest 2 to 4 weeks thereafter. It is to the advantage of the counsel as well as the case in question that the matter is decided when arguments are fresh in the memory of the authority hearing the matter. With these observations on the undesirability of delay in this regard, we proceed to deal with the case on merits.;