In a landmark ruling that reshapes the procedural landscape of intellectual property litigation in India, the Madras High Court has declared that no intra-court appeal (Letters Patent Appeal) can be entertained against a Single Judge’s decision when that judge is exercising appellate jurisdiction under the Patents Act, 1970.
The decision, delivered in the case of Italfarmaco S.p.A. v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, effectively closes a long-debated procedural loophole and brings the Madras High Court in line with the Delhi High Court, ensuring a more uniform approach to patent disputes across India’s major commercial hubs.
The Legal Dispute: A Question of Procedure
The case reached the Division Bench of the Madras High Court after Italfarmaco S.p.A., an Italian pharmaceutical major, sought to challenge a Single Judge’s order that had upheld the Patent Office’s rejection of their patent application.
The central question was whether a litigant, dissatisfied with an order passed by a Single Judge in a patent appeal, could approach a two-judge (Division) bench of the same High Court under the “Letters Patent” (the founding charters of the High Courts).
Historically, “Letters Patent Appeals” (LPAs) have served as an internal mechanism for correcting errors by Single Judges. However, the Patent Office and the Deputy Controller argued that once the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) was abolished in 2021, and its powers transferred to the High Courts, the specialized nature of the Patents Act superseded the general internal rules of the Court.
The Court’s Reasoning: A “Special Law” Precedent
The Division Bench’s judgment rests on three critical pillars of Indian law:
1. The Patents Act as a Self-Contained Code
The court emphasized that the Patents Act, 1970, is an exhaustive and specialized statute. Section 117A of the Act explicitly lists which orders of the Controller are appealable. The Court noted that the legislature chose not to include a provision for a “Second Appeal” within the High Court. By failing to provide for such an appeal, the legislature intended for the Single Judge’s appellate decision to be final within the High Court system.
2. The Impact of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021
Until 2021, appeals against the Patent Office were heard by the IPAB. When the IPAB was abolished, its jurisdiction was transferred to the High Courts. The Madras High Court reasoned that since there was no intra-board appeal within the IPAB, there should not be a “bonus” layer of appeal just because the jurisdiction shifted to the High Court. The High Court, in this context, is merely stepping into the shoes of the defunct tribunal.
3. Restraints of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
The Court also highlighted Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act. This Act, which governs patent disputes as “commercial disputes,” strictly limits appeals. It mandates that an appeal shall lie only from those orders specifically enumerated in Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Since a Single Judge’s judgment on a patent appeal is not among those listed, the Division Bench concluded it lacked the statutory authority to hear the case.
Comparison: The New Litigation Roadmap
Before this ruling, the “maintainability” of intra-court appeals in patent matters was a gray area, often leading to years of procedural delays. The following table illustrates the streamlined process following the Italfarmaco decision:
| Procedure Phase | Previous Practice (Uncertain) | New Legal Standard (Madras HC) |
| Originating Office | Indian Patent Office (Controller) | Indian Patent Office (Controller) |
| First Appeal | Single Judge (High Court) | Single Judge (High Court) |
| Second Appeal | Letters Patent Appeal (Division Bench) | PROHIBITED |
| Highest Recourse | Supreme Court of India | Supreme Court of India (SLP) |
Industry Impact: Faster Resolution vs. Limited Recourse
Legal experts and stakeholders in the pharmaceutical and tech sectors are viewing the judgment with a mix of relief and caution.
- Expedited Timelines: By removing one layer of litigation, the “life cycle” of a patent dispute is reduced by several years. This is crucial in sectors like electronics or pharmaceuticals, where the commercial value of an invention can diminish rapidly.
- The “All-or-Nothing” Single Judge Round: For patent applicants, the stakes at the Single Judge level are now significantly higher. Attorneys must now treat the first appeal as their final opportunity to present technical evidence and legal arguments within the High Court.
- National Uniformity: This ruling mirrors the stance of the Delhi High Court. For multinational corporations, this uniformity reduces “forum shopping” (choosing a court based on favorable procedural rules) and provides a predictable legal environment.
Conclusion: The Road to the Supreme Court
The Madras High Court’s ruling effectively marks the end of “internal” litigation for patent rejections. Litigants who fail to convince a Single Judge now have only one door left open: a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 to the Supreme Court of India.
While the Supreme Court is notoriously selective in the cases it hears, this ruling ensures that only the most significant questions of law—rather than routine factual disputes—will ascend to the country’s highest court. For the Indian patent system, this move signifies a shift toward maturity, prioritizing the speed of innovation over the length of litigation.
