Aroa Biosurgery Limited v Controller General of Patents on 24 June, 2025, Calcutta High Court
High Court remands back the matter to the Controller
Yet another decision of the Controller that was remanded back to the same Controller for fresh consideration. This case follows a long list of cases, if put in a compilation, can be grouped as "Top Mistakes Controllers Must Avoid When Issuing Orders After Hearings."
Proceedings: The appeal challenged an order (of the Controller) dated 20th April, 2018 arising out of an application being 308/KOLNP/2011. [Section 117A(2)]
Invention: “The invention titled "Tissue Scaffolds Derived From Forestomach Extracellular Matrix" intends to provide a number of advantages over prior tissue scaffolds and is intended to be useful in a variety of clinical and therapeutic applications including wound repair and tissue regeneration.”
Hearing: “In view of the outstanding objections under sections 10(4)(c) and 3(b) of the Patents Act 1970 and 13(1) of the Patents Rules 2006, by a hearing notice dated 30.10.2017 the appellant was given an opportunity of being heard under section 14 of the Patents Act before the respondent No. 2 on 21 November 2017.”
Issue: “It is contended that in passing the impugned order the Controller has rejected the same on the ground of non-patentability under Section 3(i) of the Act. Admittedly, the hearing notice did not contain the ground of section 3(i) of the Act nor was any objection raised in this regard by the respondent Controller.”
Finding: “On a perusal of the hearing notice it appears that the objection under section 3(i)of the Act was never raised by the respondent authorities. The objection under section 3(i) of the Act has surfaced for the first time in the impugned order. The impugned order is also bereft of any reasons whatsoever. It is now well-settled that the reasons form the bedrock of any such order. (Uniworth Resorts vs. Ashok Mittal [2008] 1 CLT 1 and UPSC vs. Bibhu Prasad [2021] 4 SCC 516).”
Order: “The matter is remanded back to the respondent Controller to hear the matter afresh within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order and after giving a right of opportunity to the appellant.”
Principle of Practice: Where the Controller's order introduces a new ground on which the application is rejected, it can be challenged on the ground that the hearing notice did not mention the ground and thus violated the principles of natural justice.
[As always, the pics are AI-generated. Nothing to do with the invention involved]