K.N.BASHA,CHAIRMAN - (1.) THIS appeal is preferred challenging the order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Mumbai dated 19.07.2010 allowing the revocation application filed by the respondent herein in respect of the patent already granted to the appellant.
(2.) SHRI Dipek Mundra, the learned representative and as well as the party in person for the appellant would submit that the impugned order is liable to be set -aside both on merits and as well as on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
(3.) BEFORE going to the merits of the matter, the learned party in person pointed out that during the course of proceedings before the Controller the respondent filed an Interlocutory Petition challenging the admissibility of the additional evidence given by the appellant herein and the same was dismissed by the Controller as per the order dated 11.03.2010. It is submitted that while passing the said order the Controller mentioned about the constitution of Opposition Board and Rule 56 of the Patent Rules by the Controller on 06.08.2008 for examination and submission of its recommendations in this case to the Controller and it is further observed that the Board has already submitted its report on 23.03.2009 that is before filing of further evidence by the patentee on 17.04.2009. Therefore, it is contended that the Controller having constituted the Opposition Board and also received its report. The copy of the said report should have been furnished to the appellant as well as to the respondent. It is also contended that in the impugned order there is absolutely no reference at all in respect of the report of the Opposition Board and the Controller ought to have perused and noted the report and would have been influenced by the said report by passing the said order. Therefore it is submitted that non mentioning about Opposition Board report and as well as the non furnishing of the report to the parties would amounts to clear violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set -aside and the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration after furnishing the report of the Opposition Board to both the parties.;