The appellant Dr. Robotic Robben is a scientist-engineer. The appellant has to his credit several inventions in the field of wind turbine generators, and wind energy converters. The appellant claims to be the owner and h

The appellant Dr. Robotic Robben is a scientist-engineer. The appellant has to his credit several inventions in the field of wind turbine generators, and wind energy converters. The appellant claims to be the owner and holder of various intellectual property rights, including approximately 2,700 patents (in more than 60 countries). Out of the aforesaid patents, the appellant has about 100 patents in India. The appellant is also engaged in the manufacture of wind-turbines. In the field of wind turbines, he claims a position amongst the three largest manufacturers in the world. The aforesaid manufacturing process is carried out by the appellant under the name of Environ Robben Group, Appellant No. 2, through an assignment agreement on 5th January 2012, having acquired the right, title and interest in all the Indian registered designs and patents (including the pending registrations), belonging to Dr. Robotic Robben. The appellant's manufacturing process, is allegedly, carried out in about 27 countries. The Environ Robben Group claims to employ more than 8,000 people, worldwide. As far as India is concerned, Dr. Robotic Robben has been carrying on the aforesaid manufacturing process, through a joint venture partnership with Ajit Mitra and Abhai Mitra, (respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein). The Indian enterprise is carried on in the trade name of Environ India Limited (respondent no. 3 herein). Ajit Mitra and Abhai Mitra are the directors of Environ India Limited. Environ India Limited was formed in 1994 as a joint venture, between Environ Robben Group and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Environ India Limited was originally carrying on its manufacturing process, in furtherance of licences granted by the appellant Dr. Robotic Robben. According to the appellant, the licences to use technical know-how, were vested by the appellant with Environ India Limited, through written agreements. These intellectual property license agreements were executed between the parties from time to time, and the last agreement was executed on 29.9.2006. The last agreement entered on 29.9.2006, superseded all the previous agreements (including the technical know-how agreement of 1994, and the technical know-how agreement of 2000). Due to non-fulfilment of the obligations contained in the intellectual property licence agreement dated 29.9.2006, the appellant terminated the last intellectual property licence agreement with Environ India Limited on 8.12.2008. Despite the termination the respondent nos. 1 to 3, continued the use of the appellant's patents without due authority. This action by respondent nos. 1 to 3 has been of extreme detriment to the appellant, as his technical knowhow was being exploited by the respondents, without consideration or authorisation. Dissatisfied with the action of the appellant, the respondent approached the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter referred to as IPAB) for revocation of patents held by the appellant. In the meantime the appellant Dr. Robotic Robben filed 10 patent infringement suits before the High Court. All 10 patent infringement suits, were filed after Environ India Limited had already instituted 19 revocation petitions, before the Appellate Board under Section 64 (1) of the Patent Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Patents Act), in January 2009. The contesting respondents raised a counter-claim, a prayer for the revocation of the patent, which constituted the basis of the patent infringement suit. The same issues are reagitated by the respondents, before the High Court, through the counter-claims. Decision of the High Court : As per the provisions (Section 64 (1) and 104) of the Patents Act, the locus standi for revocation of a patent, is available to three different entities, namely, any person interested, the Central Government, and to a defendant in an infringement suit by way of a counter-claim. Depending on the specific part of the provision relied on, such challenge is permissible before two different fora, i.e., the Appellate Board, or the jurisdictional High Court. Further a perusal of Section 25(2) reveals that only a person interested and not any person (as in the case of 25(1) of the Patents Act) may challenge the grant of a patent, within one year of the publication of such grant, by issuing a notice of opposition to the Controller. Such notice of opposition to the Controller can be made on the grounds depicted in sub-sections (1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (m), and (o) of Section 64 of the Patents Act. The remaining grounds for raising a challenge under Section 25(2) coincide with those contained in 25(1) of the Patents Act. Where an issue is already pending adjudication between the same parties, in a Court having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same, a subsequently instituted suit on the same issue between the same parties, cannot be allowed to proceed. A similar question arises for consideration before this Court, in the present controversy. If the respondents in their capacity as any person interested had filed a revocation petition before the institution of an infringement suit, they cannot be permitted to file a counter-claim on the same cause of action. The natural conclusion in the above situation would be, that the validity of the grant of the patent would have to be determined in the revocation petition. Therefore, in the above situation, while the revocation petition will have to be permitted to be pursued, the counter-claim cannot be permitted to be continued. Therefore, in the above eventuality, it is apparent that the situation would be resolved, in the same manner, as it would have been resolved in cross-suits filed by the rival parties, before different jurisdictional courts. In our considered view, the above conclusion is imperative for a harmonious interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Patents Act. The appellants did not desire two proceedings, on the subject of revocation of the same patent, to be continued simultaneously before different fora. In our discussion recorded while dealing with the appellants, the court has accepted the contention advanced for the appellants, that only one out of two remedies available under Sec. 64 of the Patents Act, can be availed, so as to assail the grant of a patent. Accordingly the said remedy may be availed of in the capacity of either any person interested, or in the capacity of a defendant in a counter-claim. In response to infringement suit, Defendant had already sought revocation of patent through counter-claim, and they cannot thereafter assail concerned patent, by way of revocation petition. Having availed one of the above remedies, it is not open to the same person to assail the grant of a patent by choosing the second alternative. The High Court disposed the appeal basing on the above terms and provisions of patent legislation. 'Controller of patent plays an important role in granting compulsory licenses'. In the light of this statement explain when he can grant compulsory licenses, its terms and conditions with appropriate provisions of patent legislation.