C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 30/2023 Page 1 of 23

$~29

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 30/2023

FILO EDTECH INC

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwary, Ms.

Radhika Pareva and Mr. Asavari Mathur,

Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr.

Harish

Vaidyanathan

Shankar, CGSC with Mr. Srish Kumar

Mishra, Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday and

Mr. Krishnan V, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

%

21.11.2023

1.

This appeal, under Section 117A (2)¹ of the Patents Act, 1917,

assails order dated 24 March 2023 passed by the Assistant Controller

of Patents and Designs, rejecting Application No. 202221006191

dated 4 February 2022 filed by the appellant for grant of a patent for

an invention titled “CONNECTING A TUTOR WITH A

STUDENT”.

1117-A. Appeals toHigh Court. –

(1)

Save as otherwise expressly provided in sub-section (2), no appeal shall lie from any

decision, order or direction made or issued under this Act by the Central Government, or from any

act or order of the Controller for the purpose of giving effect to any such decision, order or

direction.

(2)

An appeal shall lie to the High Court from any decision, order or direction of the

Controller or Central Government under Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19,

Section 20, sub-section (4) of Section 25, Section 28, Section 51, Section 54, Section 57, Section

60, Section 61, Section 63, Section 66, sub-section (3) of Section 69, Section 78, sub-sections (1) to

(5) of Section 84, Section 85, Section 88, Section 91, Section 92 and Section 94.

Digitally Signed

By:HARIOM

Signing Date:24.11.2023

12:05:35

Signature Not Verified

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 30/2023 Page 2 of 23

2.

Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, learned Senior Standing

Counsel for the respondent advanced a preliminary objection to the

maintainability of the present appeal before this Court. He submits

that the appeal would lie before the High Court of Bombay. He bases

this submission, inter alia, on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of

this Court in Dr. Reddys Laboratories v. Controller of Patents².

3.

If the objection is justified, the appeal must be dismissed, as this

Court would be coram non judice. I have, therefore, heard Mr Vivek

Ranjan Tiwary, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr.

Vaidyanathan, learned CGSC, at length on this aspect.

Facts

4.

Before adverting to the decision in Dr. Reddys Laboratories, a

brief reference to the facts in the present case, insofar as they are

relevant to deal with the preliminary objection of Mr. Vaidyanathan,

would be apposite.

5.

Application No. 202221006191, as noted above, was filed by

the appellant before the Mumbai Patent Office on 4 February 2022.

Apparently in accordance with Office Order No. 15 of 2016 dated 7

March 2016 and Office Order No. 34 of 2016 dated 3 June 2016

issued by the Controller General of Patents and Designs and

Trademarks, the application of the appellant was auto-allotted to the

2 295 (2022) DLT 591

Digitally Signed

By:HARIOM

Signing Date:24.11.2023

12:05:35

Signature Not Verified

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 30/2023 Page 3 of 23

Assistant Controller of Patents posted in the New Delhi Patent Office

for examination and adjudication. The Assistant Controller, to whom

the application was allotted happened to be one Mr. Praveen Kumar.

6.

Consequent on examination, First Examination Report (FER)

dated 21 March 2022 was issued to the appellant, under the signature

of Mr. Praveen Kumar but on the letter head of the Mumbai Patent

Office. Annexed to the said letter were the objections raised by the

A