Okay, I will create a structured summary based on the provided information. Please note that the provided case information is extremely limited. A real case summary would require significantly more details about the specific facts, arguments, and court's reasoning. However, based on the title "Section 8(2) in The Patents Act, 1970" and the date "19 September 1970," I will create a hypothetical summary that addresses the potential legal issues.

Short Summary

This case likely involves an interpretation of Section 8(2) of the Patents Act, 1970, concerning the obligation of an applicant for a patent in India to disclose details of corresponding applications filed in other countries. The hypothetical holding is that the applicant has a continuing obligation to update the Controller of Patents regarding the status of foreign applications until the Indian patent is granted.

Facts

Hypothetically, an applicant filed a patent application in India and also filed corresponding applications in the US and Europe. At the time of filing the Indian application, the applicant disclosed the existence of the foreign applications as required by Section 8(1). However, after filing the Indian application, the US application was abandoned, and the European application was granted. The applicant did not inform the Indian Patent Office of these developments.

Issues

1. Does Section 8(2) impose a continuing obligation on the applicant to update the Controller of Patents about the status of corresponding foreign applications after the initial disclosure under Section 8(1)?
2. What are the consequences of failing to comply with the obligations under Section 8(2)?

Petitioner's Arguments

(Assuming the Controller of Patents is the petitioner) The Controller argues that Section 8(2) imposes a continuing obligation to provide updated information on foreign applications. The information regarding the grant or abandonment of foreign applications is crucial for the Controller to assess the patentability of the invention in India. Failure to disclose this information constitutes a violation of the Act.

Respondent's Arguments

(Assuming the patent applicant is the respondent) The applicant argues that Section 8(2) only requires disclosure of information known at the time of filing the Indian application or shortly thereafter. Once the initial disclosure is made under Section 8(1), the applicant has fulfilled their obligation. Imposing a continuing obligation is unduly burdensome.

Court's Reasoning

The Court reasons that the purpose of Section 8 is to enable the Controller to efficiently and effectively examine patent applications by leveraging information from foreign patent offices. This purpose can only be achieved if the applicant has a continuing obligation to update the Controller about the status of foreign applications. The Court interprets Section 8(2) broadly to ensure the Controller has access to all relevant information. The Court emphasizes the importance of transparency and full disclosure in the patent process.

Conclusion

The Court holds that Section 8(2) imposes a continuing obligation on patent applicants to update the Controller of Patents regarding the status of corresponding foreign applications until the Indian patent is granted. The applicant's failure to disclose the abandonment of the US application and the grant of the European application constitutes a violation of Section 8(2). The Court may direct the Controller to reconsider the patent application in light of the undisclosed information or impose other penalties as provided under the Act.