Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Fisher And Paykel Healthcare Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Controller of Patents And Designs & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C)-IPD 29 of 2023, CM 78 of 2023 & CM 79 of 2023
Decided On : 14-07-2023
Patents Act - Divisional Application - The court set aside the erroneous order passed under Section 59 of the Patents Act and remanded the application to the Controller of Patents for a fresh order to be passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the Patents Act.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition assails the First Examination Report issued by the Controller of Patents, opining that the petitioner's Divisional Application is defective.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application to the Controller of Patents for a fresh order, granting an opportunity of hearing to the applicant.
Issues: Erroneous order under Section 59 of the Patents Act, 2000
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the fresh order to be passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the Patents Act.
Final Decision: The petition stands disposed of with the remand of the application to the Controller of Patents for a fresh order.
ORDER (Oral)
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails First Examination Report 17 October 2022 issued by the Controller of Patents, whereby it has been opined that Divisional Application No.202118034146 filed by the petitioner is defective, and the petitioner has been asked to file a reply to the said FER at the earliest.
2. During the course of hearing, Mr. Vaidyanathan, learned Counsel for the respondent candidly acknowledges that the impugned order has been erroneously passed under Section 59 of the Patents Act, 2000. He is agreeable to the order being set aside and application no. 202118034146 being remanded to the Controller of Patents for passing a fresh order on the application. Needless to say, the order shall be passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the Patents Act read with the applicable law in that regard.
3. In view of the peculiar facts of this case and the apprehensions expressed by Mr. Hari Subramaniam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Controller of Patents shall grant an opportunity of hearing to the applicant before passing a fresh order.
4. This petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
5. Dasti
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 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....
Proper application of mind and compliance with quasi-judicial functions are essential in patent-related decisions.
An appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act is not maintainable against an order passed under Section 21(1), which deems a patent application abandoned if the applicant fails to comply with all r....
A patent adjudication must be supported by a reasoned order to ensure fairness and facilitate judicial review.
An appeal under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 is only maintainable against an order making or refusing an amendment in the Record of Rights.
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
