Grunenthal Gmbh v. The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr

When the institution you've been fighting in suddenly disappears overnight, where does your case go? For Grunenthal Gmbh, a German pharmaceutical company, this wasn't a hypothetical—it was reality. The dissolution of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) under the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021, sent shockwaves through India's IP litigation landscape, and Grunenthal's pending patent appeal became one of many matters caught in the transition. This case illustrates a critical lesson for any IP holder: institutional change can disrupt even the most established legal proceedings.

Grunenthal Gmbh, a well-known pharmaceutical company, found itself in a patent dispute that had escalated to the appellate level. The matter, registered as Sr No 5/2018/Pt/Kol, was originally pending before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board—the specialized tribunal that historically handled patent and trademark appeals in India. However, with the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021, the IPAB was dissolved, and its jurisdiction was transferred to the respective High Courts. Grunenthal's appeal, originally filed in Kolkata, was consequently transferred to the Calcutta High Court for adjudication.

The core legal friction in this matter was not about the substantive patent issues themselves, but rather about the procedural mechanics of transferring a pending appeal from a defunct tribunal to a High Court. Grunenthal Gmbh, as the appellant, needed the court to formally take cognizance of its transferred matter and set the stage for substantive hearings. The Controller General of Patents, as the respondent, was the counterparty in the underlying patent dispute. The legal question before the court was straightforward yet consequential: how should the Calcutta High Court handle the influx of IPAB-transferred cases, and what procedural steps needed to be completed before substantive arguments could be heard?

On January 17, 2023, the Calcutta High Court addressed the procedural status of Grunenthal's transferred appeal. The court issued an interim order directing the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court to issue necessary notices to both parties and to file a report on the status of the matter. This was a procedural milestone—ensuring that both Grunenthal Gmbh and the Controller General of Patents were formally notified of the proceedings and given an opportunity to participate. The court scheduled the next hearing for March 6, 2023, allowing time for the procedural formalities to be completed. While no substantive ruling on the patent dispute itself was issued, this interim order was a critical step in keeping Grunenthal's appeal alive and moving forward under the new jurisdictional framework.

For founders, IP professionals, and patent holders, this case underscores a vital lesson: when India's IP tribunal landscape undergoes structural change, your pending appeals don't simply vanish—they transfer, but the transition requires patience and procedural navigation. If your IP matter is caught in a tribunal-to-High-Court transfer, expect interim procedural orders before substantive hearings. Engage counsel familiar with the new Commercial Appellate Division procedures, respond promptly to all notices, and track hearing dates carefully. The dissolution of a tribunal doesn't end your rights—it merely changes the courtroom where you'll assert them.