Introduction:
The maintainability of intra-court appeals within High Courts often presents complex statutory interplay, particularly when specialized intellectual property legislation intersects with commercial court laws. The dispute in this case involves an Italian company seeking to challenge an order of a single judge of the High Court that had affirmed the rejection of its patent application. The fundamental question was whether an intra-court appeal lies before a Division Bench of the High Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a judgment rendered by a single judge sitting in statutory appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. This ruling comprehensively clarifies the relationship between the Letters Patent, the Patents Act, 1970, and the overriding nature of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Factual and Procedural Background:
The appellant, Italfarmaco SPA, an Italian entity, filed patent application number 10810/CHENP/2012 before the Patent Office. The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs passed an order under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970, refusing the grant of the patent. Aggrieved by this rejection, the appellant preferred a statutory appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, before the High Court of Madras. This appeal was registered as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal CMA(PT) No. 45 of 2023. By an order dated December 20, 2024, the learned single judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Deputy Controller.
Desiring to challenge this decision further within the High Court, the appellant lodged an Original Side Appeal, registered under SR number OSA(CAD)SR. No. 72443 of 2025, before the Commercial Appellate Division. The appeal was instituted under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Upon scrutiny, the High Court Registry raised a maintainability objection, questioning how an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent could be maintained against a judgment passed in a civil miscellaneous appeal that arose from an administrative statutory tribunal order. The matter was placed before the Division Bench on December 12, 2025, to determine the maintainability of the appeal.
Dispute Before the Court:
The core legal question before the Court was whether an intra-court appeal before a Division Bench is maintainable against a judgment delivered by a single judge exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, in conjunction with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
The appellant argued that the order passed by the single judge in the civil miscellaneous appeal should be treated as an order-in-original. It was contended that because the single judge was evaluating the correctness of the decision of the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, the nature of the proceedings was akin to a writ petition, thereby attracting the intra-court appeal remedy under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The appellant also relied on Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, pointing out that intellectual property disputes regarding patents are classified as commercial disputes under the law, thereby entitling the aggrieved party to file an appeal before the Commercial Appellate Division. Conversely, the statutory framework indicated that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, strictly limits appellate remedies and overrides any contrary provisions contained in the Letters Patent.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court:
The Court engaged in a detailed statutory analysis of Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The Court emphasized that in the absence of an explicit statutory provision conferring a right of intra-court appeal, no such appeal can be entertained.
The Court observed that Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, specifically creates an appellate forum before the High Court against decisions of the Patent Office. In the present dispute, the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs passed an order under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970, and the appellant appropriately exercised its statutory remedy under Section 117A before a single judge of the High Court.
Addressing the appellant’s reliance on the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Court acknowledged that disputes concerning patents fall within the definition of a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(xvii) of the Act. However, the Court highlighted that the Commercial Courts Act is a special enactment whose appellate scheme is specifically defined under Chapter IV.
Analyzing Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Court noted that while Section 13(1A) allows appeals from judgments or orders of a Commercial Division to the Commercial Appellate Division, this right is governed and limited by the proviso to Section 13(1A) as well as Section 13(2). The proviso restricts appeals to only those orders specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Crucially, Section 13(2) contains an express non-obstante clause stipulating that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or the Letters Patent of a High Court, no appeal shall lie from any order or decree of a Commercial Division or Commercial Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.
The Court concluded that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, intentionally overrides the Letters Patent. Consequently, Clause 15 of the Letters Patent cannot be invoked to bypass the statutory limits imposed by Section 13. The Court emphasized that stretching or expanding the scope of the Commercial Courts Act beyond its explicit language would defeat the very objective of the statute, which aims at streamlined and expedited commercial dispute resolution. Since an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, is a statutory first appeal heard by a single judge, no second intra-court appeal lies to a Division Bench under the guise of the Letters Patent or the Commercial Courts Act.
Final Decision of the Court:
The High Court affirmed the maintainability objection raised by the Registry. The Court held that the intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, was not maintainable against the judgment of the single judge passed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. Accordingly, the Original Side Appeal filed at the SR stage, bearing OSA(CAD)SR. No. 72443 of 2025, was rejected.
Point of Law Settled:
This judgment reaffirms the principle that Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, expressly overrides Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Where a single judge of a High Court decides a statutory appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, no further intra-court appeal lies before a Division Bench or the Commercial Appellate Division. The judgment clarifies that the appellate framework under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is exhaustive, and parties cannot create an additional layer of intra-court appeal using the Letters Patent when the statutory scheme does not provide for one.
Title of the Case: Italfarmaco SPA Vs. Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs Date of Judgment: 12.12.2025 Case Number: OSA.(CAD)SR. No. 72443 of 2025 Neutral Citation: Not Available in Source Order Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Headnote of the Judgment:
Italfarmaco SPA v. Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, High Court of Judicature at Madras, OSA.(CAD)SR. No. 72443 of 2025, decided on 12.12.2025. The appellant filed an intra-court appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenging an order of a single judge passed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Registry raised an objection regarding maintainability. The High Court held that Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act expressly overrides the Letters Patent. Since an intra-court appeal against an order passed in a statutory appeal under Section 117A is not provided under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act or Order XLIII of the CPC, the appeal was held not maintainable and was rejected.
Suggested SEO Tags:
Italfarmaco SPA, Deputy Controller of Patents, Patents Act 1970, Section 117A Patents Act, Commercial Courts Act 2015, Section 13 Commercial Courts Act, Clause 15 Letters Patent, Intra Court Appeal Maintainability, Madras High Court Judgment, Patent Appeals India, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Suggested SEO Titles:
- Maintainability of Intra-Court Appeals Under Patents Act and Commercial Courts Act
- Madras High Court Clarifies Bar on Letters Patent Appeal in Patent Disputes
- Section 13 Commercial Courts Act Overrides Clause 15 Letters Patent: High Court Ruling
- Can You File an Intra-Court Appeal Against Section 117A Patents Act Order?
- Italfarmaco SPA v. Deputy Controller of Patents: Key Takeaways on Patent Appeals
- Scope of Appeals Before Commercial Appellate Division under Section 13
- Intra-Court Appeal Bar in Intellectual Property Matters Explained
- Madras High Court Rejects Intra-Court Appeal in Patent Grant Rejection Case
- Interplay Between Letters Patent and Commercial Courts Act, 2015
- Legal Analysis: Maintainability of Second Appeals in Patent Litigation India
The Title of the Case is Italfarmaco SPA v. Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, the Date of Judgment is 12.12.2025, the Case Number is OSA.(CAD)SR. No. 72443 of 2025, the Neutral Citation is Not Available in Source Order, the Name of Court is High Court of Judicature at Madras, and the Name of Hon'ble Judge is Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan.
