Banner
Workflow

DPIIT takes over IT arm of Patent office

Contact Counsellor

DPIIT takes over IT arm of Patent office

  • The Section 73(4) of the Patents Act, 1970 states that the controller, “without prejudice” may withdraw any matter pending before an officer and deal with such matter himself either from the beginning or from the stage it was withdrawn or transfer the same to another officer.

Highlights:

  • The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has taken control of the IT department of the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & TradeMarks (CGPDTM) following allegations of procedural violations and mismanagement.
  • This move comes in the wake of a petition filed by the All India Patent Officers Welfare Association (AIPOWA) in the Delhi High Court, accusing the CGPDTM of violating Section 73(4) of the Patents Act, 1970.

Key Points:

  1. Allegations and Legal Context:
  • Violation of Section 73(4) of the Patents Act, 1970: The petition alleges that the CGPDTM office violated Section 73(4), which allows the Controller to withdraw and reassign matters, but requires that this be done transparently and lawfully.
  • The reallocation of patent applications by the IT division was allegedly arbitrary and undermined the impartiality of the patenting process.
  • Concerns Over Corruption and Favoritism: The petition suggests that the reallocation of patent applications could leave room for corruption and favoritism, compromising the integrity of the patent granting process.
  • It calls for an inquiry into these actions and demands accountability from those responsible.
  1. DPIIT’s Response:
  • IT Infrastructure Upgrade: DPIIT has taken over the IT department, claiming the move is part of a broader plan to upgrade the aging IT infrastructure of the Patent Office. An official stated that the upgrade was planned over 1.5 years ago, dismissing the allegations as baseless.
  • Leadership Change: Subhash Chandra Karol, Director of DPIIT, has been given additional charge of the IT office to oversee the modernization efforts.
  1. Contractual Employees and Legal Concerns:
  • Outsourcing to QCI: The petition raised concerns about the involvement of contractual employees hired through the Quality Council of India (QCI), a not-for-profit body, in quasi-judicial functions such as patent reallocation.
  • The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati advised that decisions made by these outsourced employees could be "inherently flawed and legally unenforceable."
  • Termination of MoU with QCI: In response to these concerns, DPIIT has asked the Patent Office to terminate its Memorandum of Understanding with QCI, indicating a move to ensure that all patent-related decisions are made by statutorily authorized personnel.

Implications:

  • Legal and Administrative Repercussions: The ongoing legal battle and the DPIIT's intervention may lead to significant administrative changes in the Patent Office, including stricter controls over who can handle patent applications and how IT systems are managed.
  • Impact on Patent Processes: If the court finds the reallocation of patent applications to be unlawful, it could result in the annulment of certain decisions, leading to delays or reversals in patent grants.

Prelims Takeaways:

  • QCI
  • DPIIT

Categories