Aventis (Oa/11/2019/Pt/Kol) vs Controller General Of Patents on 23 March, 2026

    0
    25
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Calcutta High Court

    Sanofi – Aventis (Oa/11/2019/Pt/Kol) vs Controller General Of Patents on 23 March, 2026

    Author: Arindam Mukherjee

    Bench: Arindam Mukherjee

    OIPD-3
                                           ORDER SHEET
    
                           IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                       INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS DIVISION
                                    ORIGINAL SIDE
    
                             IPDPTA/78/2023
                  SANOFI - AVENTIS (OA/11/2019/PT/KOL)
                                   VS
      CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND
                                  ANR.
    
    
    
    BEFORE:
    The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
    Date: 23rd March, 2026.
    
    
    
                                                                                         Appearance:
               Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Sr. Adv., Sourojit Dasgupta, Adv., Mr. Biswaroop Mukherjee, Adv.
                                                                             Mr. Uttiyo Mallick, Adv.
                                                                                    for the appellant
                                                                       Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Adv.
                                                                     Mr. Rishav Kumar Thakur, Adv.
                                                                                    For respondents

    The Court: The appellant submits in support of the grounds on which

    the appellant seeks interference to the order of the Assistant Controller of

    SPONSORED

    Patents & Designs dated 29th August, 2018. The brief objection of the appellant

    is that the Assistant Controller while passing the order impugned did not deal

    with the arguments given in response to the objection regarding lack of

    inventive steps but only passed a cursory remark in respect thereof. The refusal

    cannot be under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as

    said Act). According to the appellant, rejection if any, at the highest could have

    been under the provisions of Section 3(d) of the said Act for which the controller

    was required to address the issues accordingly.

    2

    The order impugned, therefore, is perverse and tainted with material

    illegality according to the appellant. This fact is, however, disputed on behalf of

    the controller being respondent nos.1 and 2 in the appeal. The matter requires

    further consideration.

    Let it appear in the monthly list of April 2026.

    (ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

    Sb/



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here