PRABHA SRIDEVAN,CHAIRMAN - (1.) THIS application is for receiving additional documents pending the revocation petition filed by the petitioner herein. The Petitioner challenges the patentability of Patent No.196774 for a novel [6.7 -bis(2methoxyehoxy)quinazolin -4 -yl] -(3 -ethynylphenyl)amine hydrochloride and a process for preparing the same. Though the Petitioner originally sought revocation on several grounds including non -disclosure, obviousness and others, the petitioner claims he is not pressing any of the grounds except the grounds of non -disclosure, and non -furnishing the information required by Section 8 of the Patents Act ("Act" in short).
(2.) IN the grounds of revocation, the Petitioner had pleaded that information relating to US patent 221 was not disclosed and now the Petitioner seeks to produce before us 12 documents and information relating thereto which according to the Petitioner ought to have been furnished by the Respondent. According to the Petitioner, these documents were secured from the website and they are relevant for deciding the issue in dispute.
(3.) SHRI P.S. Raman, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that there is no explanation why the documents were not produced earlier, since it is apparent that the downloaded documents were in the possession of the Petitioner even in 2009. The Petitioner has suppressed the reasons why these documents were not produced at an early stage. The averments in paragraph 2 of the Miscellaneous Petition that at the last hearing of this matter on 20th December 2012, the Board had directed the last date for exchange of documents is 30th January, 2013, is not correct. This would indicate that the Board had granted leave, but no such leave was actually granted. The Learned Senior Counsel submitted that this Board had in ORA/1/2007/PT/MUM( TVS Motor Co Ltd vs Bajaj Auto Ltd) refused to allow an expert to give his opinion because the application was filed at a belated stage. The Learned Senior Counsel, however, submitted that of all the 12 documents the one relating to 221 alone may be entertained, since it was mentioned in the grounds for revocation. The Learned Senior Counsel stressed that the Petitioner may only invoke 64(i)(m) and not 64(i)(j) of the Act since he had specifically given up all other grounds except the ground for revocation under Section 64(1)(m). The following decisions were relied upon:;