Case Title: Cyril Bath Company Vs. Controller of Patents and Designs and Ors.
Case Number: IPDPTA/8/2025
Court: High Court at Calcutta (Original Side – Intellectual Property Rights Division)
Hon’ble Judge: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
Order Date: 01.09.2025
Dispute: Cyril Bath Company had filed a divisional patent application in India (Application No. 1376/KOLNP/2013). The Controller of Patents rejected the divisional application, holding that modification of claims in a PCT national phase application is not allowed under the Patents Act and Rules. The Controller concluded that such modification could only be sought through amendment, not by filing a divisional application.
Reasons (Court’s Discussion): The Court observed that the Controller’s order was defective because it only quoted provisions (like Sections 10, 11, 16, etc. of the Patents Act) but gave no reasoning. Under law, an order must satisfy the tests of “why” and “what”—the reasoning must explain why the conclusion has been reached. Without reasons, the order becomes unsustainable.
The Court also noted that the Controller had wrongly relied on the Delhi High Court decision in Boehringer Ingelheim without considering the later judgment in Syngenta Ltd. v. Controller of Patents (2023), which had clarified the law.
Decision:The High Court set aside the Controller’s order and remanded the matter back to the Controller of Patents to decide the divisional application afresh in accordance with law, within three months. The Court made it clear that it had not given any opinion on the merits of the divisional application itself.
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi)