AIC246 AG AND CO KG vs THE PATENT OFFICE OF INDIA THROUGH CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS

Judgment text excerpt

5-COMMP-72-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION COMM. MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 72 OF 2025 AIC246 AG & Co. KG …. Petitioner Versus The Patent Office of India and Ors. .... Respondents _______ Adv. Amey Nargolkar a/w. Arkadeep Kundu i/b. Khaitan and Co. for Petitioner. Adv. Vinit Jain a/w. Gaurav Mhatre and Shazia Ansari for Respondent No. 1. Adv. Rashmin Khandekar a/w. Vandika Malhotra Hegde, Rishi Mody, Sanjana Krishnasarma, and Lavnish Kumar Sharma i/b. VMH and Associates for Respondent No. 3. _______ CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. RESERVED ON : 20th FEBRUARY 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 27th FEBRUARY 2026 JUDGEMENT 1. The captioned Petition impugns an Order dated 26th June 2023 (“the impugned order”) passed by Respondent No. 2, i.e., Controller of Patents, by which the Petitioner’s Patent Application No. 201627001750 for “Amorphous Letermovir and Solid Pharmaceutical Formulations thereof for Oral Administration” was rejected solely 1 Areeb - Corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 9th March 2026 5-COMMP-72-2025 under the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Patents Act”) on account of a pre-grant opposition filed by Respondent No. 3 without giving the Petitioner a hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act. 2. Mr. Nargolkar, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, at the outset submitted that the impugned order suffers from several substantive infirmities, which include failure to consider expert evidence, absence of adequate reasoning, and failure to properly assess novelty, inventive step and the applicability of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. He, however, submitted that the Petitioner was confining the challenge only with regard to the admitted and l