AIC246 Ag and Co. Kg vs the Patent Office of India through Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

AIC246 Ag and Co. Kg vs the Patent Office of India through Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim procedural directions only; substantive contention not decided and petition remains pending. Respondent No.3 to ensure its reply affidavit is on record within two weeks; respondent Nos.1 and 2 to place reply affidavits on record within four weeks; rejoinder affidavit, if any, within two weeks thereafter; petition listed for hearing on 01 July 2025, “High on Board”.

Issue for consideration

Whether, under the scheme of the Patents Act, 1970 — particularly Sections 14 and 15 in Chapter IV and Section 25 in Chapter V of that Act — respondent No.2 could have refused the grant of the patent by the impugned order without first affording the petitioner a hearing under Section 14 of the Act. Raised as a contention by the petitioner's counsel; undecided at this stage.

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner's contention involves interpretation of the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970 and the entire scheme of hearing contemplated therein, it was necessary for respondent Nos.1 and 2 to place their reply affidavits on record.

Key takeaways

Respondent No.3 was directed to ensure that its reply affidavit is placed on record within two weeks, its counsel having stated the affidavit was already filed but not reflected in the record.ratio¶17
Reply affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 was directed to be placed on record within four weeks.ratio¶24
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, was directed to be filed within two weeks after the respondents' reply affidavits.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (OOCJ) — COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 72 OF 2025 — AIC246 AG and Co KG v. The Patent Office of India through Controller General of Patents & Ors. — Interim procedural order dated 28 April 2025 (Manish Pitale, J.). Counsel for respondent No.3 stated its reply affidavit was already filed but not reflected on record; respondent No.3 was directed to ensure it is placed on record within two weeks. Counsel for the petitioner contended that, under the scheme of the Patents Act, 1970 — particularly Sections 14 and 15 in Chapter IV and Section 25 in Chapter V — respondent No.2 could not have refused the patent by the impugned order without first affording the petitioner a hearing under Section 14 of the Act. Observing that this contention involves interpretation of the provisions of the Act and the entire scheme of hearing contemplated therein, the Court directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to place their reply affidavits on record within four weeks, permitted a rejoinder within two weeks thereafter, and listed the petition “High on Board” for hearing on 01 July 2025. The substantive question stands undecided; no precedent was cited or engaged with in this order.

24.COMMP.72.2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 72 OF 2025

AIC246 AG and Co KG

...Petitioner

Versus

The Patent Office of India Through Controller General of Patents & Ors.

...Respondents

Mr. Amey Nargolkar a/w Ms. Nisha Austine and Mr. Dhiren Karania i/b Khaitan & Co., for the Petitioner.

Mr. Vinit Jain a/w Mr. Gaurav Mhatre, for Respondent No.1.

SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI

Digitally signed bySHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI Date: 2025.04.29 15:55:58 +0530

Mr. Rashmin Khandekar a/w Rishi Mody. Mr. Anand Mohan, Ms. Sanjana Krishnasarma, Ms. Arohi Gala and Ms. Vanditta Malhotra Hegde i/b VMH and Associates, for Respondent No.3.

*** CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 28^th APRIL 2025.

P. C. :

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that reply affidavit on behalf of the said respondent is already filed. But, the record does not reflect the same. In that light, the said respondent to ensure that the reply affidavit is on record within two weeks from today.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised a specific contention that under the scheme of the Patents Act, 1970, particularly considering Sections 14 and 15 in Chapter IV of the said Act and Section 25 in Chapter V of the said Act, the respondent No.2 could not have refused the patent by the impugned order without first affording a hearing to

Page1 of 2

Shrikant Malani

24.COMMP.72.2025.doc

the petitioner under Section 14 of the said Act.

Since the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioner involves interpretation of the provisions of the said Act and the entire scheme of hearing contemplated therein, it would be necessary for respondent Nos.1 and 2 to place their reply affidavit on record.

Reply affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 be placed on record within four weeks from today.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List the petition for hearing on 01^st July 2025, “High on Board.”

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

Page2 of 2

Shrikant Malani