New Delhi: Arbitrary reallocation and abandonment of patent applications, revival of dead ones, cases being withdrawn and relisted before new officers without a reasoned written order—these are some glaring irregularities allegedly taking place at the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) that have been highlighted in a petition filed before the Delhi High Court.
Seeking an inquiry into these alleged practices of the information technology (IT) division of the CGPDTM, the petition says the officers in the division have been hired on contract and cannot be allowed to tamper with the process of grant and refusal of patents with such impunity. Such acts, the petition alleges, are an indirect interference in the statutory quasi-judicial functions of patent officers.
Filed by the All India Patent Officers’ Welfare Association of Group A officers, who work as quasi-judicial officers with the CGPDTM and grant patent rights under the current legal regime, the petition says that listing and relisting of patent applications, review petitions and other processes have to be done in strict compliance with Section 73(4) and other provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, and other applicable laws. A reasoned order for reallocation of patent applications is thus required.
However, the IT division has, in violation of the law, transferred & withdrawn patent applications and in some cases declared them dead, while reviving a few, the petition submits. Calling these “unlawful acts” and asking the high court to take “serious note of the violation”, the officers’ association states that it gives scope to “corruption” and “favouritism”.
A bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has issued notice to the CGPDTM, seeking its response to the allegations made in the petition. The bench is expected to hear the matter again on 30 September.
The petitioners before the high court had first moved the Union Ministry of Commerce about the alleged violations through a representation that gave details of the irregularities in the reallocation of patent applications. When the association did not receive any response from the ministry, the body, concerned over alleged arbitrary actions by the IT officers, approached the Delhi High Court.
What petition alleges
According to the petition, the IT officers have virtually frustrated the automated marking system as they have resorted to the manual reallocation of applications. An automated system was developed to auto-allot patent applications to an assistant controller without any human intervention.
“Such reallocation and withdrawal of cases has made it difficult for patent officers to fearlessly and impartially discharge their quasi-judicial functions and have hit the confidence of stakeholders in the system,” the petition states. Moreover, the IT team’s actions have cast doubt over data on pendency and disposal of patent applications, it submits.
“Some of the recent reallocations show that the whole exercise of allocation without human intervention stands frustrated with the manual reallocation exercise through the IT team in violation of the letter and spirit of Section 73(4), which mandates withdrawal of any matter pending before an officer, by the controller, only through an order in recording reasons for the same,” the petition says.
According to the petition, there are 10 cases that have been reallocated to new officers without any written order from the competent authority.
“Reallotments have been affected by the IT team with remarks such as load balancing, to expedite disposal, to ensure equal availability of amended applications,” the petition claims, adding the reallocations were carried out according to individual preferences.
Some applications related to electrical inventions were reallocated to controllers in mechanical and metallurgy groups, which, the petition alleges, was done according to the team that was hired on contract from the Quality Council of India (QCI).
Twenty-five patent applications were reallocated in which hearings had already taken place and only decisions were to be pronounced. Under the law, the officer who has heard the case can only decide it, says the petition.
Similarly, 55 review petitions were reallocated by the IT team, which even revived 100 applications that were denied patent rights. The petition alleges that the orders of refusal in these applications have been removed from the website of the CGPDTM.
Further, the IT team has been marking patent applications as abandoned (dead) without the permission of the competent authority mentioned in the Patent Office procedure. In 2020, the IT team declared 11,000 pending applications as abandoned. In 143 cases, the IT team extended the time limit to complete procedural requirements, according to the petition.
The petition emphasises the need for a “fair” and “transparent” patenting regime to promote innovation and research. An inquiry into the arbitrary practices is “necessary to deter errant behaviour” and will ensure the integrity of the patenting process, it submits.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: How Supreme Court’s process of designating senior advocates changed in last 7 yrs & what it is now