The Patents Act, 1970 is a noble statute to promote research & improvement in innovation and implement monopoly over intellectual works. This enactment is in coordination with the international recommendations about patents, and to keep pace with the changing need globally; it gets amended regularly following the international conventions and treaties. The Act contains provisions regarding:
Section 117A of the Patents Act 1970 strives to administer the appeals passed on from any decision, order, or control of the Controller or Central Government.
While interpreting this provision, it is necessary to remember that no provision or word in an enactment is to be read separately. The true purpose of the legislature behind the provision is understood if a progressive approach is taken to interpret.
The scope of section 117A is very comprehensive, and while deciding a Writ petition, the Madras High Court discussed the substantial scope of the said provision.
A normal reading of section 117A reveals that sec. 117A(1) deals with issues that are not appealable to Intellectual Property Appellate Board. It can be understood as a preventive condition specifies that issues listed out in sec.117A(2) can be appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.
Provisions listed in sec.117A(2) are as follows:
sec. 15, sec. 16, sec. 17, sec. 18, sec. 19, sec. 20, sec 25(4), sec. 28, sec. 51, sec. 54, sec. 57, sec. 60, sec. 61, sec. 63, sec. 66, sec 69(3), sec. 78, sec 84(1), sec. 84(2), sec. 84(3), sec. 84(4), sec.84(5), sec. 85, sec. 88, sec. 91, sec. 92 and sec. 94.
The primary thing in all the provisions mentioned above is related to powers of the Controller or mandates passed by the Controller. Sec. 117A(2) exclusively excludes any other judgment, order or direction passed under this Act by the Central Government or the Controller which is not specified in it.
Sec. 117A is a provision that limits certain appeals and allows certain appeals by exclusively mentioning the provisions under section 117A(2). Still, after referring to the Madras High Court of Yahoo! Inc. vs. Intellectual Property Appellate Board case, it is evident that section 117A has a vast extent. Hence, the interpretation is for meeting the ends of justice.