LAW FOR ALL

“Revocation of the patent is sought on the grounds of lack of novelty, obviousness and insufficiency. The patentees have not filed a Counterstatement, and by their Agenmts’ letter dated 5 March 1981 indicated that they do not intend to contest the application and furthermore propose to allow the patent to lapse by non-payment of the renewal fee due on 27 July, 1981. Subsequently, the patentees have formally offered to surrender their patent, and no opposition to the surrender has been entered. Under the provisions of Section 29 of the Patents Act, 1977, the acceptance by the Comproller of an offer to surrender a patent does not result in the automatic termination of any revocation proceedings that may be in being, although it is clear that the rights existing prior to the date of acceptance of the offer are considerably impaired by the surrender. In the present case, it is manifest that the revocation is to be treated as undefended and accordingly, in dealing with the issues raised, I must assume that the truth of every statement made by the applicants in their statement of cases has been conceded, unless it is contradicted by facts elsewhere in the documents filed. Having reviewed the matter, I am satisfied that the applicants’ case at least in respect of prior publication and obviousness is of undoubted substance, and since in the circumstances the question of amendment does not arise, I therefore direct that the patent be revoked. It follows that no further action is necessary in relation to the offer to surrender the patent.” -Consequently the Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Chennai is directed to remove the impugned patent standing in the name of the first respondent “ICOS Corporation” under patent No.224314 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy of this Bench. Consequently the surrender proceedings pending before the Controller of Patents becomes infructuous