{"id":321851,"date":"2024-05-10T15:00:02","date_gmt":"2024-05-10T09:30:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=321851"},"modified":"2024-05-14T17:40:49","modified_gmt":"2024-05-14T12:10:49","slug":"no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"No Appeal lies u\/s 117-A of Patents Act 1970 against an Order passed u\/s 21(1): Bombay HC reiterates"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> The present petition is an appeal under the provisions of Section 117-A<\/a> of the Patents Act, 1970<\/a> (‘the Patents Act’) impugning the Order dated 16-8-2021 passed by the respondent. A Single Judge Bench of Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, J<\/span>., held that since the petitioners have not complied with the requirements of the First Examination Report (‘FER’) within the time prescribed, the provisions of Section 21(1) would be applicable and therefore, the impugned Order has been correctly passed under the provisions of Section 21(1) and not under Section 15. The Court therefore dismissed the petition as being non-maintainable under the provisions of Section 117-A<\/a> of the Patents Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The petitioners had filed a patent application which was refused by the respondent as he considered that the application shall be deemed to have been abandoned as the petitioners had failed to comply with the requirement of Section 21(1)<\/a> of the Patents Act<\/a>. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed the present petition challenging the order of the Controller.<\/p>\n

Counsel for respondent, raised a preliminary objection that the present petition was not maintainable and submitted that Section 117-A did not provide for an appeal against an order passed under Section 21(1)<\/a> of the Patents Act<\/a>. It was further submitted that, since the impugned order was passed under Section 21(1), the present appeal was not maintainable.<\/p>\n

Observations<\/p>\n

The Court opined that it was clear from the provisions of Section 117-A that no Appeal lies against an Order passed under Section 21(1)<\/a> of the Patents Act<\/a>. The Court agreed with the submission of Counsel for respondent that, since the Order dated 16-9-2021 itself showed that it has been passed under Section 21(1)<\/a> of the Patents Act<\/a>, this Court would have to hold that it has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the same under the provisions of Section 117-A as Section 117-A does not provide for an appeal against the said Order.<\/p>\n

The Court also agreed with the submission that it is not open for an Appellate Court, like this Court, to consider whether the order would fall under the provisions of Section 15<\/a> of the Patents Act<\/a> once the order clearly showed that it falls within the provisions of Section 21(1)<\/a> of the Patents Act<\/a>. Therefore, the Court held that the petition may not be maintainable.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the reply dated 24-12-2019 of the petitioners did not comply with all the requirements as it showed that, except in respect of the requirement regarding inventive step, in respect whereof the petitioners have made some comments, the reply does not at all deal with the other requirements of the FER.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the petitioners did not seek extension of time for complying with the requirements of the FER. Thus, the impugned Order clearly holds that the petitioner is deemed to have abandoned the application and that it has failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21(1)<\/a> of the Patents Act<\/a>. Therefore, the impugned Order refuses to proceed with the application for a Patent of the petitioners.<\/p>\n

The Court held that since the petitioners have not complied with the requirements of the FER within the time prescribed, the provisions of Section 21(1) would be applicable and the impugned Order has been correctly passed under the provisions of Section 21(1)<\/a> of the Patents Act<\/a> and not under Section 15<\/a> of the Patents Act<\/a>, as alleged by the petitioners.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. Union of India<\/span>, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1086<\/a> and Merck Serono S.A.<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1825<\/a> and opined that if the applicant complies with all the requirements imposed on it under the Patents Act, then the basic factual condition for attracting the deemed fiction of abandonment in terms of Section 21(1) would be non-existent, i.e., the case would not fall under Section 21(1)<\/a> of the Patents Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court dismissed the petition for being non-maintainable under the provisions of Section 117-A<\/a> of the Patents Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[Sonalkumar Sureshrao Salunkhe v. Assistant Controller of Patents, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1260<\/a>, decided on 6-5-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the petitioner-<\/span> Advocate Hiren Kamod, Advocate Anees Patel, Advocate Prem Khullar, Advocate Aditya Chitale, Advocate Prashant Shetty i\/b R.K. Dewan Legal Services<\/p>\n

For the respondent-<\/span> Advocate Abhishek Bhadang and Advocate Carina Xavier<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The impugned Order clearly holds that the petitioner is deemed to have abandoned the application and that it has failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":314919,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[8991,20521,2569,49772,68550,32044,53516,49927,68549,57279,68551],"class_list":["post-321851","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-appeal","tag-appellate-court","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-controller-of-patents","tag-first-examination-report","tag-impugned-order","tag-non-maintainable","tag-patents-act-1970","tag-section-117-a","tag-section-15","tag-section-211"],"yoast_head":"\nNo Appeal lies u\/s 117-A of Patents Act 1970 against an Order passed u\/s 21(1): Bombay HC reiterates| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay High Court reiterated that no Appeal lies under Section 117-A of Patents Act 1970 against an Order passed under Section 21(1).\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"No Appeal lies u\/s 117-A of Patents Act 1970 against an Order passed u\/s 21(1): Bombay HC reiterates\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court reiterated that no Appeal lies under Section 117-A of Patents Act 1970 against an Order passed under Section 21(1).\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-05-10T09:30:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-05-14T12:10:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"No Appeal lies u\/s 117-A of Patents Act 1970 against an Order passed u\/s 21(1): Bombay HC reiterates\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"No Appeal lies u\/s 117-A of Patents Act 1970 against an Order passed u\/s 21(1): Bombay HC reiterates| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-05-10T09:30:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-05-14T12:10:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\"},\"description\":\"Bombay High Court reiterated that no Appeal lies under Section 117-A of Patents Act 1970 against an Order passed under Section 21(1).\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Bombay High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"No Appeal lies u\/s 117-A of Patents Act 1970 against an Order passed u\/s 21(1): Bombay HC reiterates\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\",\"name\":\"Simranjeet\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Simranjeet\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"No Appeal lies u\/s 117-A of Patents Act 1970 against an Order passed u\/s 21(1): Bombay HC reiterates| SCC Times","description":"Bombay High Court reiterated that no Appeal lies under Section 117-A of Patents Act 1970 against an Order passed under Section 21(1).","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"No Appeal lies u\/s 117-A of Patents Act 1970 against an Order passed u\/s 21(1): Bombay HC reiterates","og_description":"Bombay High Court reiterated that no Appeal lies under Section 117-A of Patents Act 1970 against an Order passed under Section 21(1).","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-05-10T09:30:02+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-05-14T12:10:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Simranjeet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"No Appeal lies u\/s 117-A of Patents Act 1970 against an Order passed u\/s 21(1): Bombay HC reiterates","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Simranjeet","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/","name":"No Appeal lies u\/s 117-A of Patents Act 1970 against an Order passed u\/s 21(1): Bombay HC reiterates| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2024-05-10T09:30:02+00:00","dateModified":"2024-05-14T12:10:49+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd"},"description":"Bombay High Court reiterated that no Appeal lies under Section 117-A of Patents Act 1970 against an Order passed under Section 21(1).","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Bombay High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/10\/no-appeal-lies-u-s-117-a-of-patents-act-1970-against-an-order-passed-u-s-211-bhc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"No Appeal lies u\/s 117-A of Patents Act 1970 against an Order passed u\/s 21(1): Bombay HC reiterates"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd","name":"Simranjeet","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Simranjeet"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":370432,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/20\/intra-court-appeal-in-patent-disputes-not-maintainable-madras-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":321851,"position":0},"title":"Intra-court appeal not maintainable in patent disputes; Commercial Courts Act overrides Letters Patent of High Court: Madras High Court","author":"Soumya Yadav","date":"December 20, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cAny expansion of the scope of the Commercial Courts Act would defeat its objectives, and there is no ambiguity regarding appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"intra-court appeal patent disputes","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/intra-court-appeal-patent-disputes.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/intra-court-appeal-patent-disputes.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/intra-court-appeal-patent-disputes.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/intra-court-appeal-patent-disputes.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298090,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/31\/delhi-high-court-request-chief-justice-to-formulate-division-bench-to-decide-issues\/","url_meta":{"origin":321851,"position":1},"title":"Delhi High Court requests Chief Justice to formulate Division Bench for deciding issues relating to plurality of inventions u\/s 16 of Patents Act, 1970","author":"Editor","date":"July 31, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe application could not have been rejected solely on the ground that the plurality of inventions was not specifically contained in the claim, and only in the disclosure contained in the complete specifications.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":270049,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/14\/delhi-high-court-non-consideration-of-the-grounds-raised-in-a-pre-grant-opposition-while-granting-patent-per-se-constitutes-violation-of-principles-of-natural-justice\/","url_meta":{"origin":321851,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court| Non-consideration of the grounds raised in a pre-grant opposition while granting patent per se constitutes violation of principles of natural justice","author":"Editor","date":"July 14, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Jyoti Singh, J. in a case where patent was granted without delving and dealing with the grounds raised in the pre-grant opposition stage remanded it back to the Deputy Controller of Patent for reconsideration of the pre-grant opposition as the impugned order violates principles of natural justice.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":324672,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/19\/madras-high-court-affirms-rejection-of-iit-m-patent-on-method-of-doping-potassium-for-lack-of-inventive-step\/","url_meta":{"origin":321851,"position":3},"title":"Madras High Court affirms rejection of IIT-M Patent on \u2018Method of Doping Potassium\u2019, for lack of inventive step","author":"Apoorva","date":"June 19, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court concluded that without any experimental data to compare the costs of using filtrate material, which requires frequent changing, vis-a-vis using an external reagent, the economic significance of the claimed invention cannot be established. Thus, the claimed invention lacks an inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":299063,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/11\/delhi-hc-revocation-petition-u-s-64-patents-act-is-not-a-suit-within-the-meaning-s10-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":321851,"position":4},"title":"Revocation Petition under Section 64 of Patents Act is not a suit within the meaning of Section 10 of CPC: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"August 11, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe Court cannot create a deeming fiction on its own, where the statute does not do so. In the absence of any provision which deems a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act to be a suit, a Court cannot, even in the interests of expediency, so hold.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":310198,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/27\/invention-applicable-business-primarily-related-technical-process-not-business-method-madras-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":321851,"position":5},"title":"Invention applicable in business but primarily related to technical process is not a business method; Madras HC remanded patent application for reconsideration","author":"Apoorva","date":"December 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe monopoly claim is not in respect of a business method but in respect of a claimed invention deploying hardware, software and firmware for purposes of data privacy and protection\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"madras high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/321851","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=321851"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/321851\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314919"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=321851"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=321851"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=321851"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}