Decided on December 13,1976



- (1.)The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Laws of United Kingdom having its registered office at London. On August 6, 1958 the petitioner company had filed an application for granting patent in respect of ?CATALYSTS AND HYDROCARBON STEAM REFORMING PROCESS USING THEM? under the Indian Patents and Designs Act,, 1911. Thereupon, on 23rd March, 1963 the Patent Office, Calcutta accepted the said application of the petitioner. On August 5, 1958 the petitioner was granted Patent No.77950 in respect of the said invention. A copy of the specification which according to the petitioner described, ascertained the nature of the said invention and the manner in which the same is to be performed has been made in Annexure 'A' to the writ application. The petitioner has been regularly paying annual fees for renewal of the said patent.
(2.)On 20th April, 1972 the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970 other than Ss. 12(12), 13(2), 28, 68, 125 and 130 came into force. On December 16, 1972 the Patent Office, Calcutta made the following endorsement in the entry of the petitioner's patent in the Register of Patents 'deemed to be endorsed licenses of right under S. 87 of the Patent Act, 1970'.
(3.)In May, 1975, A. H. Lalji as the Managing Director of the Catalysts and Chemicals India (West Asia) Limited had written a letter to the Director of Research of the petitioner company proposing to enter into an agreement for granting licence to M/s. Catalyst and Chemical India (West Asia) Limited to manufacture I.C. 46-1 Neptha reforming catalyst covered by the petitioner's said patent Specification No.77950. But no mutual agreement was made between the parties. Thereafter, on March 29, 1976 Catalysts and Chemicals India (West Asia) Limited, the respondent No.2, made an application to the Controller General of Patents, Patent Office, Calcutta for settlement of the terms of (under?) S. 88(2) of the Patent Act, 1970 in respect of Patent No.77950 for ?CATALYSTS AND HYDROCARBON STEAM REFORMING PROCESS USING THEM? held by the Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, the present petitioner. The circumstances in which the said application under S. 88(2) had been made were set out in the statement accompanying the said application. The respondent No.2 also made an application before the Controller General of Patents under S. 88(4) of the Patent Act, 1970 for permitting it to work the aforesaid patented invention of the petitioner company on such terms, as the Controller General might pending his decision under S. 88(3) think fit to impose. The Patent Office served the notices of the said proceedings under sub-ss. (2) and (4) of S.88 of the Patents Act, 1970 upon M/s. Remfry & Sons, Patent Attorney for and on behalf of the petitioner company. The prayer made by M/s. Remfry & Sons for granting further time for submission of replies was not granted. The petitioner had, however, filed replies to the aforesaid applications under sub-ss. (2) and (4) of S. 88 of the Act within the stipulated time. Thereafter, on May 28, 1976 the Controller General of patents, the respondent No.1` heard both parties in respect of the application of the respondent No.2 in respect of the latter's application under S. 88(4) of the Patents Act. On June 4, 1976, the respondent no.1 passed his order under S. 88(4) of the Act permitting the respondent no.2 to work the aforesaid-patented invention of the petitioner subject to the terms set out in his decision under S. 88(3) of the said Act of 1970.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.