UPL Limited Vs. Astec Life Sciences Limited

Case Title:UPL Limited Vs. Astec Life Sciences Limited & Anr

Date of Order:20th February 2025

Case Number:IPDPTA/2/2024

Name of the Court:High Court at Calcutta

Name of the Hon’ble Judge:Hon’ble Justice Shri Ravi Krishan Kapur

Brief Facts:

UPL Limited filed an appeal against an order dated 9th March 2024, which had allowed a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970.

The appellant (UPL Limited) contended that the impugned order suffered from gross violations of natural justice and fairness.

The primary allegation was that the order verbatim reproduced portions of the Note of Submissions filed by the private respondent, including typographical errors and page numbers, suggesting a lack of independent application of mind by the adjudicatory authority.

Issue:

The issue before the court was whether the impugned order was legally sustainable or if it should be set aside for violation of due process.

.

Reasoning of the Court:

Violation of Natural Justice:The court noted that the impugned order was passed without proper reasoning and failed to demonstrate independent application of mind. The order merely replicated the submissions of the respondent, including errors, which rendered it a "travesty of justice."

Role of the Controller under the Patents Act:

The court emphasized that decisions under Sections 14, 15, and 25(1) of the Patents Act must be made with due consideration.The Controller must properly explain objections and allow applicants an opportunity to respond. The First Examination Report (FER) and Second Examination Report (SER) should be communicated clearly to the applicant.

Requirement of Reasoned Orders:

Orders must contain reasons and justify conclusions rather than merely reproducing submissions.Mechanical reproduction of submissions without critical analysis is a violation of natural justice and due process.

Decision of the Court:

The impugned order was set aside as it was found to be unsustainable in law.The matter was remanded to a different officer for fresh adjudication within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order.The court clarified that it had not adjudicated on the merits of the case and left all points open for the Controller to decide.

Law Point Settled in this case:

Patent opposition proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice.Orders under the Patents Act must be reasoned and reflect independent application of mind.A mechanical reproduction of submissions, without critical evaluation, renders an order legally unsustainable.The adjudicatory process in patent matters must be fair, transparent, and conducted within the prescribed timelines.