Short Summary
BASF SE appealed against an order refusing to grant a patent for its Divisional Application. The refusal was based partly on timing and lack of distinctiveness. The High Court quashed the order, finding that the respondent failed to consider the fact that the application was filed on the same day as the original patent grant, and also violated principles of natural justice.
Detailed Summary
of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time filed by the Bosch defendants. The judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's request, finding that a non-redacted version of Valeo's 15 June 2026 filing had been deposited in the CMS simultaneously with the redacted version, and that Bosch had failed to exercise due diligence in accessing it. The court ruled that the deadlines under R.29(d) RdP run from 15 June 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in BASF SE vs The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Intervet International B.V.vsReyaansh Healthcare
The plaintiffs, holders of Indian Patent 283279 for the veterinary product Fluralaner, filed a suit against Reyaansh Healthcare for manufacturing and selling Fluralaner tablets under the brand Flurashield without a license. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the product until further hearing.
Abbvie Ireland Unlimited CompanyvsController General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Abbvie Ireland Unlimited Company challenged the slow pace and procedural irregularities in the handling of its Patent Application No. 8004/DELNP/2011, which was subject to multiple pre-grant oppositions under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner raised concerns regarding mechanical issuance of notices and delays in pronouncing orders after hearings were concluded. The Delhi High Court intervened, directing the Controller General's office to expedite the process and pass a consolidated order on all pending oppositions by December 31, 2025.
Kamterter Products LlcvsThe Assistant Controller Of Patents
Kamterter Products Llc appealed against an order rejecting its patent application (IN 1044/KOLNP/2010) for a 'SEED TESTING METHOD AND APPARATUS' under Section 15 of the Patent Act, 1970. The appellant contended that the rejection order was devoid of reasoning and violated principles of natural justice. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
Huawei Technologies Co., LtdvsThe Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the Controller of Patents' order rejecting its PCT National Phase application. The rejection was based primarily on alleged failure to submit proper method claims and procedural lapses regarding a delayed Form-3 filing. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the rejection was not dealt with on merits and procedural errors did not justify rejection, thus remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Shah Mayankkumar BharatkumarvsController Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed a revisional application before the Calcutta High Court, aggrieved by the excessive delay in disposing of an opposition filed by opposite party no. 2 against their Registered Design (No. 304927). The court disposed of the application by directing the Controller of Patents and Designs to conclude the pending opposition proceedings within two months.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.