Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh vs The Controller Of Patents on 4 April, 2022

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh vs The Controller Of Patents on 4 April, 2022

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh

                                                             Signature Not Verified
                                                             Digitally Signed
                                                             By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
                                                             Signing Date:06.04.2022
                                                             06:02:31

$~1
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                    C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 27/2021
      BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH ..... APPELLANT
                   Through: Mr. Debashish Banerjee, Mr. Vineet
                            Rohilla and Mr. Ankush Verma,
                            Advocates (M:9810948290)
                   versus

      THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS              ..... RESPONDENT
                     Through: Mr. Harish V. Shankar, CGSC with
                              Ms. Bushra Kazim, Mr. Karan
                              Chhibber, Advocates.
      CORAM:
      JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
               ORDER

% 04.04.2022

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. I.A. 17086/2021 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. I.A. 17086/2021 is disposed of.

I.A. 17085/2021(for condonation of delay)

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the hearing before the Assistant Controller of Patents was held on 9th November, 2020, and the impugned order was communicated to the Appellant only on 25th March, 2021. Thereafter, the present appeal was filed on 15th December, 2021.

4. Considering the orders of the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 titled In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, the delay of 173 days in filing the present appeal stands condoned.

5. Accordingly, I.A. 17085/2021 is allowed and disposed of.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:06.04.2022 06:02:31

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 27/2021

6. Reply has not yet been filed. Let the same be filed within four weeks.

7. Let the Appellant place on record the complete specifications of the basic patent, by the next date.

8. Mr. Ravikumar Battini, Assistant Controller of Patents shall remain present through virtual mode, in order to assist the Court on the next date.

9. It is noticed that the impugned order in this matter does not mention the date on which the said order was pronounced or communicated. Only the date of hearing has been mentioned as 9th November, 2020. Thus, it is unclear as to the date on which the impugned order was passed.

10. In future, it shall be ensured by the Patent Office that the date on which the order was pronounced, uploaded or communicated should be specifically mentioned in the order itself. In the Reply to be filed on behalf of the Patent Office, the date on which the impugned order was pronounced, uploaded or communicated to the Appellant shall also be specified.

11. List on 29th July, 2022.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

APRIL 4, 2022/aman/ad

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders