Intra-Court Appeal Found Non-Maintainable as Special Enactment Overrides General Letters Patent Provisions
In a significant judgment passed by the Madras High Court, a division bench comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Kumarappan has dismissed an intra-Court appeal filed by Italfarmaco Spa against the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs. The appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970, specifically addressing whether such appeals are maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent or are subject to the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.
The appellant, Italfarmaco Spa, sought to overturn the decision of a learned Single Judge, who upheld the Deputy Controller's decision to deny the patent. The appellant argued that the Single Judge's order was akin to an order in a writ petition, thereby warranting an intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
However, the High Court bench clarified that the Commercial Courts Act, being a special enactment, supersedes the Letters Patent. Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act explicitly states that appeals from judgments or orders of Commercial Courts or Commercial Divisions can only be entertained if they are specifically enumerated under the provisions of the Act, effectively barring appeals under general provisions like Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
The Court meticulously examined the statutory framework, noting that Section 117A of the Patents Act provides for appeals against orders from authorities like the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs. Such appeals are adjudicated by the High Court, which possesses the authority to entertain regular appeals under the Patents Act. The judgment emphasized that the Commercial Courts Act aims to streamline and expedite commercial litigation, which includes patent disputes, and its provisions are intended to be comprehensive and exclusive.
The bench observed that expanding the scope of intra-Court appeals to include cases under the Commercial Courts Act would undermine the legislative intent and objectives of the Act. The judgment underscores the dominance of the Commercial Courts Act in handling commercial disputes, including those related to intellectual property rights.
In affirming the Registry's objection to the maintainability of the appeal, the Court reinforced the principle that special enactments prevail over general provisions, ensuring clarity and consistency in the adjudication of commercial disputes. The decision effectively reinforces the streamlined process envisioned by the Commercial Courts Act, emphasizing the legislative intent to provide an efficient legal framework for resolving commercial disputes.
Bottom Line:
An intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable against an order of a learned Single Judge passed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, as the Commercial Courts Act, being a special enactment, prevails over the Letters Patent.
Statutory provision(s): Patents Act, 1970 Section 117A, Commercial Courts Act Section 13, Letters Patent Clause 15
