S. Chandrasekaran, Member (T) - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 117A(2) of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Nokia Corporation against the order of the Controller of Patents dated 26.09.2007 passed in the matter of Patents Application No. 1857/CHENP/2003.
(2.) THE appellant has filed an international PCT application in EPO on 28.05.2001 which has been numbered as PCT/EP01/6069. The appellant has entered into the National Phase of various countries including India within the period prescribed under PCT. Accordingly the national phase application filed on 27.11.2003 by the appellant has been accorded Patent Application No. 1857/CHENP/2003. Due to non -compliance of office requirements, the respondent passed an order refusing the grant of patent. Hence the above appeal. The respondent examined the national phase application and issued the first examination report dated 12.04.2006 which comprised of few technical objections in addition to number of formal objections regarding the procedural matter. One such formal objection was about the status of the applications filed in foreign countries as to whether the same has been accepted and if yes to furnish copy of the examination report and accepted copy of the complete specification. The appellant had submitted the details of the national phase application filed in other countries and mentioned the filing date of the national phase application in India as 28.05.01 being the international filing date of the international PCT application in EPO. During subsequent examination of the patent application, the respondent has maintained the objection that "the exact national phase entry dates shall be given in the annexure to the statements and undertaking on Form 3" and insisted that the international filing date shall not be mentioned there. In this respect the respondent offered an opportunity of hearing on 12.04.2007 to the appellant to put forth its observation in the event of non -compliance of this formal objection. Despite the fact that the applicant (appellant herein) submitted detailed observations mentioning the actual national phase entry date in the Form 3, which is similar to the practice followed in many such similar applications filed and prosecuted in the same IPO, Chennai and also in other International Patent Offices namely, USPTO, Australia, Canada and China, but the respondent refused the grant of patent on the said application on the ground that the applicant has given incorrect and false information and failed to disclose to the Controller the information required under Section 8 of the Act.
(3.) THE Appeal came up for hearing before us on 11.09.2008 when Shri A. Vijay Anand, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri G. Desingu, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent.;