In the matter of Synthes GMBH v Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks In a case brought by Synthes GMBH to overturn an ACGP decision rejecting their request for a patent on a bone fixation device, Justice Hari Shankar issued the ruling After reviewing the order, the bench observed that the ACGP had simply copied and pasted paragraphs from other documents, saving itself the work of having to type the order out. The Court also pointed out that 16 years have gone since the current case’s patent application, which was submitted in 2007. Finally, the court overturned the ACGP’s decision and mandated that the new case be resolved in three months.
Analysis of Court order
Ashlesh Maurya, an Assistant Controller General of Patents (ACGP), was ordered by Delhi High Court Single Bench Justice C Hari Shankar to take a course on making judicial decisions after he passed an order that made a complete mockery of the powers granted to the quasi-judicial body.
The High Court said that it was gravely troubled by the officer’s order and noted that this was the fourth instance in which a case had been brought before the court in which the officer at the Patents Office had issued such an order. BlackBerry Limited’s patent application was turned down, whereas Dolby International AB’s was accepted. The Court overturned each of these rejections because they lacked justification. This Court is genuinely shocked by how the challenged judgement has been passed, Justice C. Hari Shankar said in the Dolby case. In the Blackberry case, Justice Sanjeev Narula emphasised that the petitioner may find it challenging to establish the grounds for appeal if the Assistant Controller’s instructions lack appropriate explanation.