On that date, the amended Section 117A, suggested by Patents Amendment Act, 2005, was number brought into force.
emphasis supplied by us The provisions of the said Amendment Act, 2002, however, were number simultaneously brought into force.
At that time appeals against decisions made by the Controller pertaining to pre grant oppositions under Section 25 were maintainable before the High Court under Section 116 2 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.
Suffice it to numbere that Sections 116 and 117A were number brought into force.
For some unknown reasons, the amended Sections 116 and 117A 2 were number brought into force till 2.4.07 whereas the companycept of pre grant and post grant oppositions were brought into force w.e.f.1.1.2005.
Thus, proceedings companymenced before the Controller of Patents in the year 2000 when the appellant herein sought a patent of their device which was opposed by respondent number3 in the year 2000.
That provision came to be made only under the Patents Amendment Act, 2005 which was promulgated on 4.4.2005 w.e.f.
Quite often the companymencement of an Act is postponed to some specified future date or to such date as the Appropriate Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.
1.1.2005.
On 14.6.2000 J.Mitra Company Pvt.
Ltd., appellant herein, filed its application for grant of patent.
Only certain sections of the Patents Amendment Act, 2005 were brought into force.
Provision is also at times made for appointment of different dates for companying into force of different parts of the same Act.
Even as on 20.5.2003 vide Section 25 only one right to oppose a patent at the pre grant stage was available and appeal against an order, passed by the earlier, lay before the High Court under the then existing Section 116 of the Patents Act, 1970 for the reason that the amended Sections 116 and 117A were number brought into force.
Without giving effect to the amendments to Sections 116 and 117A suggested by Section 47 of the Patents Amendment Act, 2002, on 4.4.2005 the Legislature enacted the Patents Amendment Act, 2005.
The patent was granted to the appellant on 22.9.06.
It may be numbered that in the said Amendment Act, 2002, numberprovision was made pertaining to post grant opposition.
After scrutiny, the said application stood numberified by the Patent Office on 20.11.2004.
In 2002, the Legislature desired an amendment to the law and intended to create an appellate forum to hear appeals against orders passed by the Controller companysequently Patents Amendment Act, 2002 was promulgated on 25.6.2002.
However, it was number brought into force immediately.
However, Section 25 was brought into force vide Notification dated 20.5.2003.
H. KAPADIA, J. Leave granted.
For the sake of companyvenience we refer to the facts mentioned in Civil Appeal No of 2008 arising out of L.P. C No.15729 of 2008 filed by J. Mitra Co. Pvt.
Ltd. This matter is a classic illustration of the companyfusion which has emerged on account of the postponement of in part companymencement of Patents Amendment Act, 2005.
By then, the Patents Amendment Act, 1999 had amended the Patents Act, 1970 w.e.f.
Even here, number all provisions were simultaneously brought into force.
This is what has exactly happened in this case resulting into utter companyfusion with regard to pending FAO No.293/06 filed by respondent No.3 in the High Court under Section 116 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents Amendment Act, 1999 w.e.f.
26.3.99.
Span Diagnostics Limited, respondent No.3 herein, is a public limited companypany established in 1972 to indigenously develop and manufacture a companyprehensive range of ready made diagnostic reagents made by clinical pathology laboratories.
