Array Biopharma Inc v. Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr

When the institution entrusted with resolving your patent dispute is suddenly abolished overnight, where do you turn? For Array Biopharma Inc, this was not a hypothetical question but a stark reality triggered by the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The case serves as a critical reminder that the architecture of IP litigation can shift beneath your feet, and founders must understand not just the law, but the procedural machinery that delivers it.

Array Biopharma Inc found itself in a patent dispute that needed to be heard by an appellate authority. Historically, such matters fell under the jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), the specialized body designed to handle appeals in intellectual property cases. However, the legal landscape changed dramatically with the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021, which effectively dissolved the IPAB and transferred its pending matters to the respective High Courts. Array Biopharma's case was among those caught in this institutional transition, landing before the Calcutta High Court on 17 January 2023.

The central tension in this matter was not a clash of substantive patent arguments but a procedural one. Array Biopharma Inc, as the petitioner, was seeking adjudication of its patent-related grievance against the Controller General of Patents. The respondent was the Controller General of Patents, the authority responsible for granting or rejecting patent registrations in India. The legal friction arose from the transition itself: with the IPAB abolished, the Calcutta High Court had to determine how to properly receive, process, and hear these transferred matters. The question was not whether the case had merit, but whether the procedural framework was correctly set up to even consider it.

The Calcutta High Court, recognizing the transitional nature of the matter, issued an interim order rather than diving into the substantive patent issues. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices to the relevant parties and to file a report before any further hearing date could be set. This procedural step was essential to ensure that the transferred matter was properly domesticated within the High Court's system. The court did not render a final judgment on the patent dispute itself; instead, it laid the procedural groundwork necessary for the case to move forward under the new institutional framework created by the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021.

For founders, startup leaders, and IP professionals, this case underscores a vital lesson: institutional change in the IP ecosystem is not just a legal footnote, it directly affects your pending disputes. When a tribunal like the IPAB is dissolved, your matter does not vanish, it transfers, and the receiving court will impose specific procedural steps before your substantive arguments are even heard. Stay proactive: track the status of your IP appeals, understand which division of the High Court now handles your matter, and be prepared for procedural delays as courts work through the backlog of transferred cases. In IP litigation, knowing the forum is just as important as knowing the law.