{"id":3707,"date":"2026-04-07T13:14:20","date_gmt":"2026-04-07T07:44:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=3707"},"modified":"2026-04-07T13:14:20","modified_gmt":"2026-04-07T07:44:20","slug":"bombay-high-court-rules-as-to-no-further-appeal-in-commercial-patent-disputes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/bombay-high-court-rules-as-to-no-further-appeal-in-commercial-patent-disputes\/","title":{"rendered":"Bombay High Court Rules As To No Further Appeal In Commercial Patent Disputes"},"content":{"rendered":"

Vishal Praful Singh Solanki and Anr.\u00a0 {<\/strong>Appellant(s) }\u00a0 \u00a0 <\/strong>Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>Controller of Patents Design and Ors.\u00a0 {<\/strong>Respondent(s)}<\/strong><\/h1>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Commercial Appeal (L) No. 13430 OF 2025\u00a0 <\/strong>IN\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 110 OF <\/strong>2025<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>(DB, Bharati Dangre & Manjusha Deshpande, JJ., delivered by Bharati Dangre, J.)<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Overview<\/strong><\/p>\n

In this matter, the Bombay High Court addressed the issue as to whether a party can file another appeal after a Single Judge has already decided a patent appeal. The matter came as a Commercial Appeal under the Commercial\u00a0 Courts Act 2015 before a Division Bench.<\/p>\n

The appellant challenged the rejection of their patent application earlier before a Single Judge, but it was dismissed. Then they tried to approach the Division Bench, while arguing that the decision made earlier should be treated as a judgement which can be appealed further.<\/p>\n

Instead of going into the technicalities of the patent, the court tried to address a basic question as to procedure i.e., whether the law allows a Second Appeal in such situations. The Court examined the relationship between the Patents Act, the Commercial Courts Act, and the Code of Civil Procedure to decide on the availability of such a remedy.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts of the Case<\/strong><\/p>\n

The appellant filed a patent application on 17 March 2015 for an invention called \u201cThread Type Tamper Evident Security Seal.\u201d During the process, a third party filed a pre-grant opposition, which challenged the validity of the invention in question.<\/p>\n

The Assistant Controller indicated that the patent could be granted if certain changes were made. However, after considering the opposition in detail, the Controller eventually rejected the application on 14 June 2023. This decision was based on the provisions of the Patents Act, which deals with lack of novelty and inventive step.<\/p>\n

The appellant challenged this refusal by filing an appeal under section 117A of the Patents Act before the Bombay High Court. After considering an examining the entire matter, the Single Judge upheld the Controller\u2019s decision and the appeal was dismissed on 27 March 2025. Not being satisfied with the same, the appellants filed a Commercial Appeal before a Division Bench, claiming that the Single Judge\u2019s decision is open to further appeal under the Commercial Courts Act.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Legal Issues<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Whether an appeal can be filed after a Single Judge has already decided an appeal under the Patents Act.<\/li>\n
  2. Whether Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure prohibits a second appeal in such situations.<\/li>\n
  3. Whether the Controller of the Patents can be treated as a court while performing similar functions.<\/li>\n
  4. Whether allowing repetitive appeals, defeats the purpose as to finality in legal procedures.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The Division Bench rejected the appeal, and it was held that once a Single Judge has decided an appeal, the another appeal cannot be filed unless specifically permitted. Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure was taken into consideration, which restricts further appeals after a Single Judge has exercised appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, no Second Appeal could be filed before the Division Bench in the current scenario.<\/p>\n

    The court also rejected the argument that this rule is not applicable because the Controller of Patents is not a court. It was clarified that the Controller performs functions which are similar to those of a court such as, evaluating evidence and making decisions, and therefore would fall under the scope of such provisions.<\/p>\n

    The Court, at last, held that the purpose of the law is to prevent multiplicity of cases and ensure finality in decisions. Since the appeal itself was not legally allowed, it was dismissed without entering into the merits of the dispute.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Vishal Praful Singh Solanki and Anr.\u00a0 {Appellant(s) }\u00a0 \u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0Controller of Patents Design and Ors.\u00a0 {Respondent(s)} \u00a0 Commercial Appeal (L) No. 13430 OF 2025\u00a0 IN\u00a0 \u00a0Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 110 OF 2025 \u00a0(DB, Bharati Dangre & Manjusha Deshpande, JJ., delivered by Bharati Dangre, J.)   Overview In this matter, the Bombay High Court addressed […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3708,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3707","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3707","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3707"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3707\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3711,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3707\/revisions\/3711"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3708"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3707"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3707"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3707"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}