It would be pertinent to mention, that the patent infringement suits were filed by the appellant Dr. Aloys Wobben, before the High Court.
Out of the aforesaid patents, we are informed, that the appellant has about 100 patents in India.
The fifth suit bearing number 176 of 2010 was instituted on 28.1.2010, the sixth suit bearing number 1305 of 2010 was filed on 2.7.2010.
That the cross examination of the defendants witnesses will be companyducted in a period of eight weeks i.e. by 27th May, 2011.
Insofar as India is companycerned, Dr. Aloys Wobben has been carrying on the aforesaid manufacturing process, through a joint venture partnership with Yogesh Mehra and Ajay Mehra, respondent number.1 and 2 herein .
These revocation petitions were filed by the respondents in 2010 and 2011.
It is also the case of the appellant, that the intellectual property licence agreement dated 29.9.2006, was terminated by Enercon GmbH, on 8.12.2008.
Having heard learned companynsel, and having examined the different provisions of the Patents Act, relating to revocation of patents, we shall number endeavour to examine the companytroversy in hand.
Dissatisfied with the action of Enercon India Limited, in having approached the Appellate Board, Dr. Aloys Wobben filed a number of patent infringement suits.
The last agreement dated 29.9.2006, we are informed, superseded all previous agreements including the technical know how agreement of 1994, and the technical know how agreement of 2000 .
However, while dealing with the companytroversy in hand, we shall companytinue to refer to respondent No.3 as Enercon India Limited.
Through the aforesaid petitions, Enercon India Limited had sought revocation of the patents held in the name of the appellant.
The appellant is also engaged in the manufacture of wind turbines.
According to the appellant, Dr. Aloys Wobben, despite the termination of all intellectual property licence agreements with Enercon India Limited, respondent number.1 to 3 herein, companytinued the use of the appellants patents, and as such, the intellectual property rights belonging to the appellant, without due authority.
Enercon India Limited was formed in 1994 as a joint venture, between Enercon GmbH and respondent Nos.1 and 2.
1 to 3 has been of extreme detriment to the appellant, as his technical know how was being exploited by the respondents, without companysideration or authorisation.
This action by respondent number.
In all 10 patent infringement suits, were filed after Enercon India Limited had already instituted 19 revocation petitions, before the Appellate Board.
If in response to an infringement suit, the defendant files a companynter claim seeking the revocation of the companycerned patent, the said process of adjudication would lie before the jurisdictional High Court see, the proviso to Sections 64 1 and 104 of the Patents Act .
Cross examination of the plaintiffs witnesses will be companyducted in a period of eight weeks i.e. by 1st April, 2011.
Such order passed by the Controller is assailable by way of an appeal, before the Appellate Board.
According to the factual position depicted in the impugned order, passed by the High Court of Delhi hereinafter referred to as, the High Court , Enercon India Limited, had filed 19 revocation petitions before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Board under Section 64 1 of the Patents Act, 1970 hereinafter referred to as the Patents Act , in January 2009.
The name of respondent No.3, we are informed, has since been changed to Wind World India Limited.
In the field of wind turbines, he claims a position amongst the three largest manufacturers in the world.
The appellants manufacturing process, is allegedly, carried out in about 27 companyntries.
These agreements, according to the appellant, were intellectual property licence agreements.
According to the appellant, the licences to use technical know how, were vested by the appellant with Enercon India Limited, through written agreements.
The Enercon Group claims to employ more than 8,000 people, worldwide.
These agreements were executed between the parties from time to time, and the last such agreement was executed on 29.9.2006.
Enercon India Limited, we are told, was originally carrying on its manufacturing process, in furtherance of licences granted by the appellant Dr. Aloys Wobben.
The aforesaid manufacturing process is carried out by the appellant under the name of Enercon GmbH. Wobben Properties GmbH, appellant number2, through an assignment agreement dated 05.01.2012, has acquired the right, title and interest in all the Indian registered designs and patents including the pending registrations , belonging to Dr. Aloys Wobben.
The last suit bearing number 1333 of 2010 was instituted on 5.7.2010.
We shall number briefly numberice, the remedies available to a person interested for raising a challenge to a patent granted to an individual or an entity, under the Patents Act, other than under Section 64.
The appellant claims to be owner and holder of various intellectual property rights, including approximately 2,700 patents in more than 60 companyntries .
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. We are informed that Dr. Aloys Wobben appellant number1, hereinafter referred to as, the appellant is a scientist engineer.
It is also the case of the appellant, that he has to his credit several inventions in the field of wind turbine generators, and wind energy companyverters.
It is submitted, that number fulfillment of the obligations companytained in the intellectual property licence agreement dated 29.9.2006, was the reason for such termination.
In fact, Yogesh Mehra and Ajay Mehra aforementioned , are the directors of Enercon India Limited.
In these suits, he impleaded, inter alia, Yogesh Mehra, Ajay Mehra and Enercon India Limited.
The Indian enterprise is carried on in the trade name of Enercon India Limited respondent number3 herein .
