Quashed¶15

Laminar Pharmaceuticals S a v. Joint Controller of Patents and Designs

Bombay HC11 Nov 2025COMMP/48/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patents — rejection of patent application by Joint Controller of Patents and Designs — impugned order a one-page order bereft of reasoning — petitioner unable to discern ground of rejection — preclusion of substantive appeal — consent remand for fresh hearing — impugned order quashed and set aside — Controller to hear matter afresh — petition disposed of — interim application disposed of as not surviving — Bombay High Court, Commercial Division, Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 48 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside; matter remanded back to the Controller for hearing afresh; Petition disposed of; Interim Application No. 500 of 2025 disposed of as not surviving. ¶15

Laminar Pharmaceuticals S a vs Joint Controller of Patents and Designs — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order quashed and set aside; matter remanded back to the Controller for hearing afresh; Petition disposed of; Interim Application No. 500 of 2025 disposed of as not surviving.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned one-page order rejecting the Petitioner's patent, bereft of necessary reasoning — which precluded the Petitioner from knowing the ground of rejection and from filing a substantive appeal — should be quashed and the matter remanded to enable the Controller to give a fresh hearing.

¶14

Court's answer

The Petitioner's principal grievance — that the impugned order was a one-page order bereft of necessary reasoning, leaving the Petitioner unable to understand on what ground its patent was rejected and thereby precluding a substantive appeal — was the basis on which the Court acted.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

On the fair stand of learned counsel for the Controller that the matter could be remanded to enable the Controller to give a fresh hearing, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Controller for hearing afresh.

¶15

Key takeaways

The Petition is accordingly disposed of, and in view of that disposal the interim application does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Commercial Division (Arif S. Doctor, J.) — Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 48 of 2025, decided 10 December 2025: Laminar Pharmaceuticals S A challenged the order of the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent, principally on the ground that the impugned order was a one-page order bereft of the necessary reasoning, which left the Petitioner unable to understand on what ground the patent was rejected and thereby precluded the substantive appeal from being filed. Learned counsel for the Controller agreed that the matter could be remanded to enable the Controller to give a fresh hearing. Taking this stand, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Controller for hearing afresh. The Petition was disposed of, and Interim Application No. 500 of 2025, not surviving the disposal, was also disposed of.

Laminar Pharmaceuticals S a v. Joint Controller of Patents and Designs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laminar Pharmaceuticals S a v. Joint Controller of Patents and Designs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Saurabh Arora vs the Controller of Patents and Designs

Manisha Dilip Shah vs Navneet Education Limited

Ajay Tikekar vs the Registrar of Companies

Jagmohan Singh Vs Surindra Engineering Company Ltd. and 9 Ors.

Jagmohan Singh Vs Surindra Engineering Company Ltd. and 9 Ors.

Navya Network Inc. vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs