Delhi High Court - Orders
Precise Bio Pharma Pvt Ltd vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And ... on 3 March, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C)-IPD 3/2022 & CMs 23-24/2022
PRECISE BIO PHARMA PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Rajeshwari H. and Ms. Sugandh
Shahi, Advocates.
Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Prachi
Agarwal, Ms. Ridhi Bajaj and Ms.
Mishthi Dubey, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND
DESIGNS & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,
CGSC with Mr. Zeeshan Rizvi,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 03.03.2022
[VIA HYBRID MODE]
1. Although the present petition pertains to a IPR dispute and should be heard by the newly-constituted IP Division, however, since the Court had briefly heard the arguments in the petition on earlier dates, and moreover today there is a broad consensus between the counsels for Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, this court is proceeding to hear and dispose of the matter.
2. The impugned order dated 27th January, 2022, reads as follows:
"DECISION It is observed that pre-grant opposition was filed u/s 25(1) of the patent Act 1970. The hearing under the 25(1) fixed and heard the same. The opponent's party attended the hearing. The hearing u/s 14 was also fixed and heard. The detailing of the same is not warranted in view of brevity. After going through the oral and written statement submitted by both the parties and arguments made by the both Ld. Agent/counsel during the hearing I conclude that Opponent is failed to establish all the ground of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:07.03.2022 11:22:55 opposition u/S 25(1) raised earlier in Toto.
In view of the finding upon the facts as set forth in the submission, considering the Notice of Opposition, Statements of both the parties, evidence thereon, arguments put forward by the agents, facts and circumstances of the case and all documents as on record it is hereby ordered that the pre-grant opposition lodged against the application no. 2471/DELNP/2013 shall be dismissed and that patent shall be granted the filed amended sets of claims 1-23. There is no cost to either party.
The Application stands disposed off.
This is to be noted that the aforesaid observations, and decision thereof, are based solely on the electronically uploaded documents to date."
3. It is noted that no grounds in support of its decision have been provided. In the opinion of the Court, the impugned order disposing of the application has been passed bereft of any reason, and is not a speaking order, in violation of well-established principles of natural justice. The same is thus set aside.
4. Accordingly, the matter is remanded and Respondent No. 1 is directed to pass a reasoned order justifying its rejection on the pre-grant opposition filed against Indian Patent No. 387567, within a period of four weeks from today, after hearing both the parties.
5. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to impugn any further order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Design in accordance with law.
6. It is further directed that in case any other pre-grant opposition is filed, Respondent No. 2 shall be at liberty to oppose the same on the ground of maintainability, in accordance with law.
7. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J MARCH 3, 2022/nk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:07.03.2022 11:22:55