Alstom allowed to appeal against rejection of its patent application

CHENNAI: Showing a little leniency towards appeals that are delayed but have valid reasons, the Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal (IPAB) has said the term "sufficient cause" should be analyzed "liberally" when appeals are filed with a little delay in judicial forums.
Noting that injustice should not be caused in rejecting delayed appeals, the Board condoned an 84-day delay by Alstom Technology Ltd.The Swiss firm involved in power generation/transmission and rail infrastructure sought to file an appeal against rejection of their patent application, but it was rejected by the assistant controller of patents and designs in Kolkata in December 2012 because of 84 days of delay.
The Centre sought to justify the rejection of appeals on the ground of delay saying the company had failed to provide valid reasons.
Counsel for Alstom, however, said the delay was “neither willful nor wanton,” but because of valid reasons. After receiving a copy of the verdict, the company asked its counsel to prepare the grounds of appeal. After finalizing them, the appeal was sent to the overseas authority.
After obtaining the approval, there was an intermittent vacation. So, the appeal was finally filed in May 2015, with a delay of 84 days.
A bench of chairman Justice K N Basha and technical member (patents) D P S Parmar underlined the board’s earlier decision according to which the date of receipt of a certified verdict copy mattered over the date of passing of verdict.
According to the relevant provisions of the Trade Marks Act,1999, IPAB was not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure (CrPC), 1908, but was to be guided by the principles of natural justice.
The board also had the power to regulate its own proceedings including fixing the time and place of its hearings. Even under the provisions of the IPAB (Patents Procedure) rules, 2010, the board was empowered to condone the delay in the case of providing sufficient cause.
Defining the word sufficient cause, the bench said – “the word sufficient cause should be construed liberally with a view to advancing the rights of the parties, and the interest of justice.”
In the present case the company had “not only assigned valid reasons but also shown sufficient cause to condone the delay.” It then directed the registry to allow the company to file its appeal.