The Madras High Court has quashed the Order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs refusing to grant patent in respect of a Divisional Application on the ground that the same was filed after the grant of patent in respect of the original patent application filed by the applicant-appellant.
The Divisional Application was filed on the same day when the patent in favour of the appellant in respect of the original patent application was granted. The appellant had submitted that it was impossible to know the exact timing when the patent was granted in its favour.
Directing the Patent Office to pass final orders on the Divisional Application on merits, the Court noted that though the Standing Counsel for the Patent Office submitted that the timing of the grant of patent was earlier to the timing when the Divisional Application was filed by the appellant, the said fact was not made known to the appellant. The High Court in BASF SE v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs [Judgement dated 28 November 2024] also observed that the order impugned before the Court was thus passed by total non-application of mind rejecting the Divisional Application filed under Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Further, the High Court also noted that principles of natural justice were also violated by the Patent Office while passing the impugned order. It noted that the patent in respect of the Divisional Application was refused also by holding that the claims were not distinctive though there was no reference to the distinctiveness in the notice of hearing issued to the appellant.
The applicant-appellant was represented by Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys here.