Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2008) 08 IPAB CK 0005

Philips Electronics India Limited vs Asian Electronics Limited And The Controller Of Patents And Designs

Intellectual Property Appellate Board · Decided on 12 August 2008

HON’BLE JUDGES
Z.S. Negi, J · S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 294 words

Z.S. Negi, J

1.

This appeal under Section 116 of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay is

directed against the order dated 24.7.2006 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs whereby he allowed patent application No. 19488

for proceed to grant. After transfer of the appeal by the High Court of Bombay to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, the appeal has been

renumbered as TA/11/2007/PT/MUM.

2.

The respondent No. 1 herein had filed Form 3 being Diary No. 307/2008 for extension of time for 8 weeks for filing counter- statement. The

Deputy Registrar had observed that the matter be placed before the Appellate Board for orders. Before passing any order on Form 3 by the Appellate

Board, the respondent No. 1 filed its counter-statement on 31.3.2008 and on receipt of the counter-statement, the Registry of the Appellate Board

directed the respondent No. 1 to file a miscellaneous petition explaining the reasons for the delay. The respondent No. 1 filed a miscellaneous

application, M.P. No. 17/2008, for condonation of delay and the said application was heard by the Appellate Board on 21.7.2008 and order reserved

therein. At the time of writing order, the Appellate Board found that it has no power to condone the delay requested for.

3.

Accordingly, the Appellate Board reopened the matter and heard the reopened matter today. After hearing both sides we have, with the

concurrence of both the counsel, extended the time up to 31.3.2008 for filing the counter-statement and consequently direct that the counter-statement

filed by the respondent No. 1 be taken on record. In view of order passed on the Form 3 for condonation of delay, M.P. No. 17/2008 in

TA/11/2007/PT/MUM becomes anfractuous.