New Delhi: Nearly a year after challenging the arbitrary appointment of the head of the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM), department officers have moved the Delhi High Court against “unlawful” access given to a multinational company to assess the CGPDTM database and suggest measures to improve the processes for patents and trademarks.
In a petition filed before the high court last week, the All India Patent Officers’ Welfare Association (AIPOWA) sought direction from the court for an investigation into the permission that was given to Kaizen International (KI) to scan sensitive unpublished data related to trademarks and patent applications. The company was allowed to go through internal data servers, IT modules and general patent matters.
According to the association, this violated established norms that require prior approval from the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), the reporting body for CGPDTM under the Ministry of Commerce, before any job is outsourced to an external agency.
In the petition, the officers said they were told to cooperate with KI through various emails that they received between July and August 2023, informing them that the company had been assigned the task at the behest of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).
However, upon filing a Right To Information (RTI) application, the association learnt that the PMO had no record of any communication asking the CGPDTM to seek KI’s assistance in improving its processes for patents and trademarks.
Also Read: Threatened with transfers for challenging patent chief’s appointment, patent officers’ body tells SC
‘What is happening at CGPDTM?’
On Friday, Delhi High Court judge, Justice Sachin Datta, issued notice on the petition. But before he did so, he questioned the central government counsel on the functioning of the CGPDTM.
“What is happening in the patents office?” the judge asked the lawyer, who appeared because the association had served an advance copy of its petition to the Centre.
The government counsel objected to the petition on the grounds that it was based on vague allegations.
Rebutting the claim, Gyanant Singh, lawyer for AIPOWA, told the court that the petition relied on government documents, including internal emails sent to the officers. Singh also rebuffed the government counsel’s suggestion that the association should file a public interest litigation (PIL) because the nature of prayers in the petition were that of a PIL.
Singh also told the bench that, under the Delhi High Court rules, a petitioner has to make a declaration that they have no interest in the matter. But in the present case, he said, his client cannot give such a statement because it has accepted the fact that the association has a “right and interest in the institutional integrity of the patent office”.
It was, thereafter, that the court issued notice to the Centre, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
What the petition said
According to the association’s petition—a copy of which ThePrint has accessed—granting access to KI without requisite permission or a work order and merely on the basis of internal communication was a breach of various confidentiality provisions of the Patents Act and Trade Marks Act. This access was allowed without putting in place a mechanism to monitor the same.
The reason why officers want this access to be probed is because KI provides services across 60 countries and has clients in various industries where trade secrets and innovations are coveted assets.
CGPDTM was aware of its legal obligations to maintain the confidentiality of data, which could be exploited for unlawful gains, having international ramifications. Despite that, KI was given access, it further said.
On the other hand, in December 2023, CGPDTM refused access to DPIIT to the same data, saying it can be accessed only by the relevant officers of the patent office and trademark registry who have been earmarked the specific duties under related laws.
The officers of CGPDTM received emails between 15 July 2023 and 4 August 2023, informing them about KI’s involvement in drawing up a new mechanism for improving the practice followed to process patent and trademark applications. Apart from receiving mails from the office of their chief—Unnat P. Pandit—the officers got personal emails from KI representatives as well.
The mails sent by KI claimed that PMO wanted it to work on capacity development for the India Patent Office (IPO).
However, when the association filed an RTI with the CGPDTM office to procure documents or records of communications to know how KI was assigned the job, it received no response.
A series of RTIs filed with the PMO, the DPIIT, Ministry of Commerce and Industry eventually revealed that none of them were aware of any such job assigned to Kaizen.
Notably, after initially denying any documents with regard to work being executed by KI, CGPDTM provided a copy of the tripartite agreement it signed with the Capacity Building Commission (CBC) and Centre for Effective Governance of Indian States Foundation for capacity development of IPO for three years. CBC is an autonomous body that advises various ministries and governments on improving governance structures.
This MoU was provided only when the association confronted Pandit’s office with a plan on the CBC website. Though KI was not a party to this MoU, it mentioned the company’s name, thereby opening its doors to work without any tendering process, the association claimed in its petition.
The MoU stated “CBC shall facilitate coordination with the Kaizen team on the process of improvement of CGPDTM”. This MoU, the association further claimed, was signed by the office of CGPDTM without the approval of DPIIT.
An RTI reply by CBC revealed that there was no work order for KI, and there was no output report with respect to its work done so far. The association also pointed out that no payment was made to KI, which, according to it, reflects some ulterior motive or consideration which calls for investigation.
Apprehending exploitation of the repository of data for unlawful gains, the association alleged KI was allowed backdoor entry without any open bidding or government contract. Sharing of sensitive data with a multinational company poses a risk to national security and economic interests of the country and is liable to adversely affect innovation in various fields, the association has asserted, while demanding a probe.
This controversy comes nearly a year after an AIPOWA petition claimed that the appointment of Pandit as the head of CGPDTM was arbitrary and in contravention of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) advertisement for the post.
The petition came at a time when his move to outsource the grant of patents and trademarks to contractual employees was under scrutiny.
The petition against Pandit’s appointment was rejected by the Delhi High Court. However, the Supreme Court in April this year agreed to examine it.
(Edited by Sanya Mathur)