BRB Legal

IP Case Digest · Patents Act s.25(2)

Section 25(2), Patents Act: case law

3 judgments of the Madras High Court, the Calcutta High Court and 1 other court applying Patents Act s.25(2), from 2024–2026, each with a headnote by BRB Legal.

3judgments
3courts
2024–2026years

E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. No.8451 of 2023

Madras High Court · Dismissed

Writ petition against an Opposition Board's recommendation in a post grant opposition dismissed as not maintainable. The Court held that a recommendation under section 25(3) is only that: the Controller decides the opposition on its own merits and may concur with the recommendation, reject it, or call for a freshly constituted Board. A complaint that the Board failed to consider the patentee's evidence or applied its mind can be raised at the hearing under Rule 62, and the final order is appealable under section 117A, so no prejudice arises from leaving the recommendation undisturbed.

Terex India Private Limited v. CDE Asia Ltd. & Anr., IPDAID 4 of 2024 (Old No. A.I.D. 8 of 2023)

Calcutta High Court · Remanded

Order of the Deputy Controller refusing a post-grant opposition set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration from the stage of argument. The Deputy Controller had recorded the submissions of the parties and the contents of their written arguments but assigned no reasons. On procedure, Order XLI Rule 25 CPC does not apply to an appeal under section 117A, because the Controller is not a civil court, following the Delhi High Court Division Bench in Promoshirt, and section 100A is confined to a second appeal against a decree or order of a civil court. There is no mandatory rule that a remand go to the same or a different officer, but where there is a possibility of pre-determination it is proper to send it to a different one.

Parijat Industries India Private Limited v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr., C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 27/2024

Delhi High Court · Set aside

A post-grant opposition decided against the patentee was set aside, the patent reinstated on the register and the opposition restored. The Controller had disagreed with the Opposition Board's recommendations under Rule 56(4) and revoked the patent, but his reasoning was inadequate and did not meet the standard of reasoning required. The Board's recommendations were expressly preserved for the fresh hearing.

Other provisions of the Patents Act

All 218 judgments on the Patents Act, 1970 Search the IP Case Digest