Fresenius Kabi Ipsum SRL v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.

The Appellant challenged an order refusing their patent application for an improved process to prepare Sugammadex. The refusal was based on objections regarding lack of novelty, inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The High Court found that the Controller failed to provide a mandatory hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act, despite granting a hearing during the pre-grant opposition. The Court emphasized that examination and opposition proceedings are distinct and require separate hearing opportunities. It was held that denying a Section 14 hearing constituted a violation of natural justice and statutory procedure, necessitating a re-evaluation of the application by the Controller. Result: Appeal allowed; original refusal order set aside, and the matter remanded to the Controller for fresh consideration.