Dark Mode
Image
Logo

Intra-Court Patent Appeals Barred Under Commercial Courts Act Section 13: Madras High Court

Intra-Court Patent Appeals Barred Under Commercial Courts Act Section 13: Madras High Court

Isabella Mariam

 

The High Court of Madras Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan has rejected an original side appeal as not maintainable, declining to open a second intra-court tier against a Single Judge order passed while deciding a statutory patent appeal under the Patents Act. The appeal was brought by a patent applicant after the Patent Office, through the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, refused grant of a patent, and a Single Judge upheld that refusal in the statutory appeal. The Bench said the Commercial Courts Act confines appeals to what it expressly provides and, to avoid defeating the Act’s objectives, leaves no room to invoke Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to entertain an intra-court appeal.

 

The matter arose from a patent application filed by a foreign pharmaceutical entity seeking grant of a patent before the Indian patent authority. The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs rejected the application by an order passed under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. Aggrieved by the refusal, the applicant preferred a statutory appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act before the High Court of Madras, which was registered as a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and decided by a learned Single Judge.

 

Also Read: Cross-Examination Can Cure Examination-In-Chief Omissions: Supreme Court Dismisses Partition Suit Over Will Attestation Under Evidence Act Section 68

 

Subsequently, the appellant sought to challenge the Single Judge’s decision by filing an Original Side Appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, treating the matter as a commercial dispute. The Registry raised an objection regarding the maintainability of such an intra-court appeal. The appellant contended that the order of the Single Judge ought to be treated as an order in original jurisdiction and, therefore, appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The issue before the Division Bench was confined to whether such an Original Side Appeal was legally maintainable.

 

The Division Bench examined the statutory framework governing appeals under the Patents Act and the Commercial Courts Act. The Court observed that “in the absence of any provision for intra-Court appeal, no appeal would lie.”

 

Referring to Section 117A of the Patents Act, the Bench recorded that “appeal under Section 117A of the Patent Act has been entertained, numbered as miscellaneous appeal, adjudicated and a final order has been passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.”

 

On the reliance placed on the Commercial Courts Act, the Court stated that “the Commercial Courts Act is a special enactment and would prevail over the Letters Patent.” The Bench further noted that “Section 13(2) makes it clear that Commercial Courts Act will prevail over Letters Patent of the High Court.”

 

Interpreting Section 13, the Court observed that “the proviso clause denotes that the appeal shall lie from such order passed by the Commercial Division that are specifically provided under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

 

Also Read: Income Tax Act | Reassessment Power Applies When Original Scrutiny Order Is Silent On Section 80HHC Claim: Madras High Court Dismisses Assessee Appeal Against Section 147 Reopening

 

The Bench expressly recorded that “there is no scope to invoke Clause 15 of Letters Patent for the purpose of entertaining the present Original Side Appeal.” It further stated that “any expansion of scope of the Commercial Courts Act will defeat its objectives.”

 

Ultimately, the Court concluded that “the objection note raised by the Registry of High Court of Madras regarding maintainability is in consonance with the provisions of law.”

 

The Division Bench directed that “the intra-Court Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable, since it is not contemplated. The objection note raised by the Registry of High Court of Madras regarding maintainability stands affirmed. OSA(CAD)SR.No.72443 of 2025, is rejected.”

 

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Arun C. Mohan, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Diwakar, Central Government Standing Panel Counsel

 

Case Title: Italfarmaco SPA v. Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs

Case Number: OSA (CAD) SR No. 72443 of 2025

Bench: Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan

Comment / Reply From

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!