Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V., Represented by its Authorized Singnatory – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's grievances regarding delays and oppositions (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. argument on lack of timely action by authorities (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. respondents' defense of statutory rights (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. importance of timely decision-making in patent oppositions (Para 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. court's concern about authorities' inaction (Para 12 , 15) |
| 6. court's directions to resolve the application delays (Para 16) |
ORDER :
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice issued by the 3rd respondent dated 06.09.2024 in respect of the 4th pre-grant opposition and for a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to decide upon the 1st, 2nd and 3rd pre-grant oppositions filed against the Patent Application No.408/CHENP/2014 in a time-bound manner within the period stipulated by this Court. The petitioner has also sought for a further direction to the 3rd respondent to summarily dismiss every other pre-grant opposition received in the pending application and also to properly apply his mind on Rule 55(3)(b) of the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024, whenever a new pre-grant opposition is filed during the pendency of the present Patent Applic
The court mandates that patent authorities must timely and thoughtfully resolve pre-grant oppositions to prevent unjust delays in patent applications.
The right to oppose a patent application is a statutory right that must be honored, even if the opposition is not submitted in the correct format.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments made to patent claims at the instance of the Controller, pursuant to the directions of the Controller, do not violate the principle....
Procedural irregularities in patent opposition must respect principles of natural justice, and amendments to patent claims cannot broaden their scope.
Patents Act requires adherence to procedures in post-grant oppositions, emphasizing natural justice and timely resolutions to prevent delays in patent adjudication.
Patent examination under Chapter IV (mandatory Section 14 hearing) and pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) (Chapter V) are distinct parallel processes; refusal requires Section 14 hearing and Se....
The Controller does not have the power to extend the time for filing a response to the FER under Section 21 of the Act and Rule 24B of the Rules. However, the Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction....
The recommendation of the Opposition Board is not binding, and a writ petition challenging it is not maintainable; objections can be raised during hearings before the Controller.
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
