SANOFI - AVENTIS (OA/11/2019/PT/KOL) UTTIYO MALLICK vs CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND ANR. — IPDPTA /78/2023
Case under Patents Act ,1970 Section 117A. Next hearing: 06th April 2026.
CNR: WBCHCO0003712023
Next Hearing
06th April 2026
Filing Number
IPDPTA /78/2023
Filing Date
19-01-2023
Registration No
IPDPTA /78/2023
Registration Date
19-01-2023
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Bench Type
Single Bench
Judicial Branch
CURRENT RECORD DEPARTMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SANOFI - AVENTIS (OA/11/2019/PT/KOL) UTTIYO MALLICK
Respondent(s)
CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND ANR.
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
MATTERS UNDER THE PATENT AND DESIGNS ACT
MATTERS UNDER THE TRADE MARKS ACT
MATTERS UNDER THE PATENT AND DESIGNS ACT
MATTERS UNDER THE PATENT AND DESIGNS ACT
MATTERS UNDER THE PATENT AND DESIGNS ACT
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-01-2023 | MATTERS UNDER THE PATENT AND DESIGNS ACT | |
| 06-04-2026 | MATTERS UNDER THE TRADE MARKS ACT | |
| 23-03-2026 | MATTERS UNDER THE PATENT AND DESIGNS ACT | |
| 20-03-2026 | MATTERS UNDER THE PATENT AND DESIGNS ACT | |
| 19-03-2026 | MATTERS UNDER THE PATENT AND DESIGNS ACT |
Orders
Case Adjourned for Further Consideration Sanofi-Aventis appealed the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs' rejection order (dated 29th August 2018), arguing that the rejection was made under the wrong statutory provision (Section 3(c) instead of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970) and that the Controller failed to properly address arguments regarding inventive steps. The High Court of Calcutta found the matter requires further consideration and adjourned the case to appear in the April 2026 monthly list. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Adjourned for Further Consideration Sanofi-Aventis appealed the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs' rejection order (dated 29th August 2018), arguing that the rejection was made under the wrong statutory provision (Section 3(c) instead of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970) and that the Controller failed to properly address arguments regarding inventive steps. The High Court of Calcutta found the matter requires further consideration and adjourned the case to appear in the April 2026 monthly list. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts