##PAGE1##

2026:BHC-O S:19905 CNR No : HCBM020120002026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Digitally ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION signed by CHAITANYA CHAITANYAASHOK ASHOK JADHAV JADHAV Date:

2026.09.08 IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

17:42:53 +0530 COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO. 12000 OF 2026 Dr. Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil …Petitioner Versus

1. Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay

2. Controller General of Patents, Designs &

Trademarks

3. Prof. Siddhartha Prakash Duttagupta

4. Ramesh Pushpagandha …Respondents Mr. Hiren Kamod (Legal Aid Counsel) a/w Adv. Anees Patel (Legal Aid Counsel), Adv. Ravindra Chile (Legal Aid Counsel), Adv. Prashant Nakati, for Petitioner.

Ms. Kajal Gupta a/w Dheer Sampat, Shweta Singh i/b M. V. Kini &

Co., for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3.

CORAM: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

RESERVED ON: AUGUST 11, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON: SEPTEMBER 8, 2026

JUDGEMENT :

Impugned Order and this Petition:

1. This Petition is essentially a statutory appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 (“the Act”), impugning an order dated July 17, 2025 (“Impugned Order”), by which Patent Application No. 2808/MUM/2013 dated August 28, 2013 (“Patent Application”) for a patent has been rejected by a Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs (“Controller”).

2. The Petitioner, Dr. Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil (“Patil”) is admittedly an original inventor of the proposed patent, and named as such in the Patent Application, which was filed by the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (“IITB”). The invention is titled “An Apparatus and a Method for In-Vivo Power Generation”, essentially entailing generation of power to keep devices implanted in the human body active. The invention is based on the research conducted in the course of Patil’s association with IITB.

3. The matter in hand borders on the tragicomic. The Impugned Order is an all-round rejection of everything before the Controller. Effectively, Patil’s submissions on merits of his ownership of the invention have been rejected, while refusing to consider his submissions on the merits of Patent Application. IITB’s submissions on merits have also been rejected without even dealing with them, on the premise that IITB has not demonstrated that it is entitled to pursue the Patent Application in its name because Patil has not authorised IITB to be the applicant.

4. IITB is not at all aggrieved by the Impugned Order. It has not mounted any challenge, despite having a statutory right to appeal – in itself a pointer to IITB’s interest in asserting proprietorship over the invention. Despite refraining from appealing, IITB has actively joined issue with Patil’s submissions in this Petition.

5. Patil has appealed against the refusal to recognise his ownership and refusal to entertain his submissions on merits of the invention, both of which, according to him, should culminate in the grant of a patent for the invention, in his name.

6. The Controller has not entered appearance in this Appeal – it may be entitled to stay away from an appeal on merits and abide by the outcome of the appeal. Ordinarily, quasi-judicial orders must speak for themselves. However, by staying away through the multiple listings of this Appeal, the Controller has completely evaded having to account for its inexplicable manner of conducting proceedings relating to the Patent Application.

7. For the reasons set out in this Judgement, it is necessary to not just quash and set aside the Impugned Order but also to issue directions in exercise of this Court’s appellate jurisdiction (co-extensive with the Controller’s jurisdiction) and pursuant to its inherent powers, to restore the Patent Application to the file of the Controller, with a declaration that the Patent Application must be processed with Patil as the applicant, directing the Controller to process and deal with the Patent Application in accordance with law and the declarations made herein, on merits, within a period of eight weeks. It is also nece