Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
ITC Limited – Appellant
Versus
Philip Morris Products S. A. & Ors. – Respondents
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3 of 2023
Decided On : 23-05-2023
Impugned Order - Disposal of Appeal - The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to a competent officer to de novo hear and decide the appellant's objections, emphasizing the need for the officer to address each submission advanced by the appellant and giving both sides an opportunity to personally present themselves before the officer.
Fact of the Case:
After some hearing, both sides agree to dispose of the appeal. The court opined that the impugned order does not satisfactorily address all the submissions advanced by the appellant and the respondents agree to set aside the order and remand the matter for de novo hearing and decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the appeal by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for de novo hearing and decision, emphasizing the need for the officer to address each submission advanced by the appellant and giving both sides an opportunity to personally present themselves before the officer.
Issues: Disposal of appeal, satisfaction with the impugned order, remand for de novo hearing and decision, opportunity for both sides to present themselves before the officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the officer to address each submission advanced by the appellant and gave both sides an opportunity to personally present themselves before the officer, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for de novo hearing and decision.
Final Decision: The appeal stands disposed of with the impugned order being set aside and the matter remanded for de novo hearing and decision, with both sides given an opportunity to personally present themselves before the officer.
ORDER (Oral)
1. After some hearing, both sides are agreeable to a disposal of this appeal.
2. Having heard learned Counsel for both sides, this Court had expressed an opinion that the impugned order does not satisfactorily answer all the submissions advanced by the appellant in his (i) Written Statement of Opposition dated 4th September 2020, (ii) reply under Rule 59 of the Patents Rules, 2003 and the documents filed therewith on 1st March 2021 and (iii) his written submissions filed before the learned Controller.
3. The respondents are agreeable, in order not to protract the proceedings, to the impugned order being set aside and the matter remanded to a competent officer in the Office of the Controller General of Patents to de novo hear and decide the appellant's objections. Needless to say, the officer dealing with the matter is required to deal with each submission advanced by the appellant in the aforesaid Notice of Opposition, Rule 59 reply and written submissions, one way or the other.
4. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions of either side.
5. Both sides shall be given an opportunity to personally present themselves before the officer who is deciding the matter on 5th July 2023.
6. The officer hearing the matter should bear in mind that this is the second round of litigation. As such, the officer is expected to deal with all aspects of the matter which are placed in writing or argued by both sides before her or him. Needless to say, the rights of both sides, against any order which may come to be passed in this case shall remain reserved.
7. Let the de novo order be passed positively within eight weeks from 5th July 2023.
8. This appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
The court emphasized the importance of addressing each submission advanced by the appellant and giving both sides an opportunity to personally present themselves before the officer in the remanded de....
The need for strict adherence to the provisions of the Patents Act in passing orders on patent applications.
Proper application of mind and compliance with quasi-judicial functions are essential in patent-related decisions.
A patent adjudication must be supported by a reasoned order to ensure fairness and facilitate judicial review.
Patents Act requires adherence to procedures in post-grant oppositions, emphasizing natural justice and timely resolutions to prevent delays in patent adjudication.
The court affirmed that rejection of a patent application must adhere to principles of natural justice, including proper examination and opportunity to respond, underscoring the importance of procedu....
The court emphasized the procedural requirements for challenging administrative decisions, reinforcing the need for proper compliance with prior orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
