##PAGE1##

$~42

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C)-IPD 65/2025 & CM 295/2025

ABBVIE INC. .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Archana

Shanker, Mr. Shrawan Chopra, Mr.

Achyut Tewari, Ms. Krisha Baweja

and Mr. Parth Malhotra, Advs.

versus

CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS,

TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS & ORS.

.....Respondents

Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr.

Om Ram and Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advs.

for R-1 and R-2

Mr. Rishi Vohra, Adv. for R-6

Mr. Dominic Alvares, Mr. Samik

Mukherjee and Ms. Amrita

Majumdar, Advs. for R-7

Mr. G. Nataraj, Mr. Rahul Bhujbal,

Ms. Shreem Choubey and Mr.

Jegadheesh Rabia Chandran, Advs.

for R-8 and 9

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

O R D E R

% 23.12.2025

1. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus to Respondent nos. 1 and

2 to expeditiously decide and dispose Indian Patent application no.

4759/DELNP/2012 (IN’ 759).

W.P.(C)-IPD 65/2025 Page 1 of 3

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 22:28:35

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that Petitioner is aggrieved

by the inordinate delay in the disposal of the said application due to serial

pre-grant oppositions, which have consumed 15 years of the term of the

patent. It is stated that the application was filed on 29.05.2012 and has

remained pending till date due to the oppositions.

3. He has handed over a short note of the status of the oppositions filed

by Respondent nos. 3 to 9.

4. He relies upon the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in W.P.(C)

IPD 58/2025 titled Sh. Gurmit Singh Vs. The Commissioner MCD of

Delhi and ors. for seeking directions of expeditious disposal and does not

press for any other reliefs.

5. Issue notice.

6. Mr. Rishi Vohra, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of

Respondent No. 6 and states that Respondent No. 6 has duly received the

hearing notice for 21.01.2026 and the Respondent No. 6 will remain duly

present on the said date of hearing.

7. Learned counsel for Respondent no. 7 states that a hearing was held

on 06.05.2025 and written submissions were also filed by the said

Respondent and the orders have been reserved.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 8 states

that the hearing notice for 21.01.2026 has been received and Respondent

No. 8 will remain duly present on the said date. He also appears for

Respondent No. 9 and submits that the hearing notice has been received for

22.01.2026 and Respondent No. 9 will remain duly present.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 and 2

states that in addition to Respondent no. 7, order(s) have already been

W.P.(C)-IPD 65/2025 Page 2 of 3

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 22:28:35

reserved on the oppositions filed by Respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. She states

that hearing for Respondent nos. 6, 8 and 9 will be heard on the hearing

dates scheduled, as mentioned above, and the Respondent No. 1/Controller

General of Patents reasonably expects to pass the final order by end of April,

2026.

10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. The hearing

on the opposition of Respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6 was held in May, 2025 and

orders were reserved. So also, hearing on the opposition Respondent no. 5

was held in September, 2025 and orders were reserved, eventually.

11. The hearing in the remaining oppositions filed by Respondent no. 6, 8

and 9 are scheduled on 21^st and 22^nd January, 2026 respectively. The said

Respondents and Petitioner have undertaken to remain present at the said

hearing and they are bound down to the same.

12. In this overall conspectus, considering the fact that the Patent