IPAB though set up with the noble aim of speedily disposing off IP matters, has had several hiccups in its functioning either due to lack of Chairman or Technical Member.
Since its commencement in the year 2003, hearings of the IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board) has been an irregular affair leading to a logjam of cases as matters were not being taken up for hearing. The post of Technical Members in the fields of Trademarks, Patents and Copyrights are vacant to the current date making the IPAB dysfunctional and defeating the purpose for which it was established.
Today an astounding 3,900 cases are pending adjudication before the IPAB. The break-up of the pending cases is as under –
| S. No. | Subject of Cases | No. of Cases Pending as on 23.05.2019 |
| 1 | Trade Marks | 2626 |
| 2 | Patents | 617 |
| 3 | Geographical Indications | 01 |
| 4 | Copyright | 691 |
Access to justice includes speedy adjudication of matters. Undue and inordinate delay in hearings amounts to denial of justice. And several of these patent cases are crucial since the term of the Patent is limited and denial of hearing at the appropriate time amounts to denial of justice often rendering the matter entirely infructuous.
There is a Technical Member (Plant Varieties) appointed to hear and dispose off cases under the Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Act, 2000. However, no Technical Member (Patent) was appointed under the Patent Act, 1970.
The issue was noticed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of ‘Mylan Vs. Union of India’ wherein the Court was pained to note the large pendency of cases before the IPAB and inaction of the Government [despite of the fact that the IPAB has a Chairman – Justice Manmohan Singh (retd.) and a Technical Member (Plant Variety)].
As an interim measure, the Court invoked the ‘Doctrine of Necessity’ and has, taking into account existing precedents, directed the Chairman and Technical Member (Plant Varieties) to sit as a Bench and hear urgent matters.
This decision comes as a relief to the whole IP industry as it provides the parties access to justice, which will hopefully enable fast-track disposal of pending cases.
The matter was represented by Ms Rajeshwari Hariharan (Managing Partner) and Swapnil Gaur (Associate Advocate) of Rajeshwari & Associates. “The judgment provides a breather in this already burdened litigation domain where everyone is looking for faster solutions, IPAB being an important part of the IP fraternity, its dysfunctionality is like a paralysis”, commented Swapnil.
Concerned of the long-hauling of the matters being heard and losing the right of representation, Ms. Hariharan welcomed the decision as it marks directions towards the speedy trial of cases, and commented “Already High Courts have enough on their plates and IPR matters involve technical issues. Listing of matters and being heard gives the litigators access to their basic right to life of having timely decisions on their cases. There are certain pressing issues which needs urgent attention and with this IPAB will able to provide possible solutions.”
Read the full judgement below –
[embeddoc url=”https://legaldesire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mylan-v-Union-of-India-Judgement.pdf” download=”all”]
