tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5949922529631180407.post5468269667358094012..comments2024-03-26T01:16:29.449+05:30Comments on The Demanding Mistress: IPAB’s Yahoo Order: Analysis- IIJ.Sai Deepakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08357301068067861565noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5949922529631180407.post-17973764831982669142012-01-02T17:08:50.567+05:302012-01-02T17:08:50.567+05:30Thanks Deepa. As for appointment to the post of Te...Thanks Deepa. As for appointment to the post of Technical Member at the IPAB,I completely understand your sentiments, but I am just wondering whether there is a viable legal peg to this thought. <br /><br />Let me put it this way- merely because a person, who is a former Controller, is bound to carry or carries forward his style of reasoning to the IPAB when he is appointed as a member of the IPAB, should he be disallowed from taking up a position in the IPAB? If this line of thought were to be applied, then no Single Judge of a Court can ever be elevated to the Division Bench since his style of reasoning (even if flawed) will again be applied during his stay in the Division Bench. I am not sure this is viable or even permissible.<br /><br />That said, what could certainly be against judicial propriety is when the decision passed by a person comes before the same person in appeal. This would certainly be violative of a fundamental principle- nemo debet esse judex inpropria causa- no man can judge his own cause/case.<br /><br />As for the quality of decisions pronounced by the IPAB, I completely agree with you and I couldn't have said it better. Most of these judgments merely quote and cite decisions, but the reasoning isnt as crisp and sharp as one would expect from a body whose composition is certainly better than Courts for patent matters. In fact, the approach to issues appears hap-hazard and dog-legged in its twists and turns. <br /><br />I think it is time that fora like IPAB seek feedback from stakeholders on what is expected of them in terms of quality. I dont think there's any shame or harm in seeking such feedback, after all the body has been set up to better address issues in a niche area. And if it consistently fails to deliver the goods, stock-taking is necessary.<br /><br />Best Regards,<br />Sai.J.Sai Deepakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08357301068067861565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5949922529631180407.post-62473657311041520932012-01-02T12:05:33.208+05:302012-01-02T12:05:33.208+05:30Excellent piece Sai.
Another thought that I hope...Excellent piece Sai. <br /><br />Another thought that I hope is not too digressing: With all due respect to the Technical member IPAB, I feel that this post should not be filled by anyone who has been a serving Controller. There are many cases, where for instance, Mr. Parmar was a deciding authority at the Patent Office level and those very decisions are under appeal. Read any of his decisions when he was a Controller at the IPO and you will realize that the tenor in his decisions then and now are so very same. His reasoning for not allowing a divisional application on certain grounds are exactly the same as now! Nothing more, nothing less.<br /><br />IPAB disappoints me to be honest, as I do not see any superiority in the kind of decisions coming out. Clarifications on points of law are hardly seen. I wonder whether this was what it was meant to be in the first place? An Appellate authority ought to infuse a sense of depth, but unfortunately, I find that seriously lacking.Deepa Kachroo Tikuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03262364190734152765noreply@blogger.com