No Second Appeal in Patent Matters Absent Statutory Provision: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has held that no intra-court appeal lies under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against a judgment rendered by a Single Judge while exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, reiterating that the right of appeal is a statutory creation and cannot be inferred in the absence of an express provision.

A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the Commercial Appeal as not maintainable, holding that Section 117A of the Patents Act provides a complete appellate mechanism and does not contemplate a further appeal, and that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act cannot be invoked to create an additional appellate forum not envisaged by the special statute.

The appeal arose from the refusal of a patent application titled “Thread Type Tamper Evident Security Seal”, where the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs had rejected the application following a pre-grant opposition under Sections 25(1)(b) and 25(1)(e) of the Patents Act.

The appellants had challenged this refusal before a Single Judge under Section 117A, which came to be dismissed, leading to the present appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act.

Before the Division Bench, the appellants contended that the appeal was maintainable as the judgment of the Single Judge constituted a “decree” within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly in light of the Bombay High Court Original Side Rules which treat certain petitions akin to suits. It was argued that since the rights of the parties had been conclusively determined, the impugned judgment would qualify as an original decree and would therefore be appealable under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act.

The appellants further submitted that following the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board by the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, appeals now lie directly to the High Court under Section 117A, and in the absence of any express bar, a further appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division ought to be maintainable. It was also argued that the bar under Section 100A of the CPC would not apply, as the Controller of Patents is not a “court” and therefore proceedings before it cannot be equated with civil court proceedings.

The respondents, however, strongly opposed the maintainability of the appeal, contending that the Patents Act is a self-contained code insofar as appellate remedies are concerned and that Section 117A exhaustively provides the only appellate route available against decisions of the Controller.

It was submitted that once a Single Judge of the High Court exercises appellate jurisdiction under Section 117A, no further appeal is contemplated under the statute.

The respondents emphasized that the right of appeal is not an inherent right but a statutory one, and in the absence of an express provision permitting a further appeal, none can be assumed.

They argued that permitting such an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act would amount to judicially creating an appellate forum, which would be contrary to legislative intent.

It was further submitted that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act must be read strictly, and its proviso limits appeals from orders of Commercial Divisions only to those specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Appeals arising under Section 117A of the Patents Act do not fall within either of these categories.

The respondents also relied on Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, which contains a non-obstante clause and explicitly bars appeals except in accordance with the provisions of the Act, thereby overriding any broader appellate jurisdiction, including that under Letters Patent.

They contended that this provision reinforces the restrictive nature of appellate remedies and precludes expansion through interpretation.

Placing reliance on judicial precedents, the respondents cited decisions of the Madras High Court, including ITALFARMACO SPA v. Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs and Caleb Suresh Motupalli v. Controller of Patents, to argue that appellate remedies under the Patents Act are strictly confined to Section 117A and cannot be extended by implication.

It was submitted that permitting an additional appeal would amount to an impermissible expansion of the statutory scheme.

The respondents also invoked the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., to contend that where a special statute either expressly or by necessary implication excludes further appeals, such exclusion must be respected, and general provisions cannot be invoked to circumvent it.

Upon considering the rival submissions, the Court held that the Patents Act constitutes a complete code in respect of appeals and that Section 117A provides a singular appellate remedy to the High Court.

The Court found that once such an appeal is decided by a Single Judge, no further appeal lies unless expressly provided.

The Court rejected the contention that the impugned judgment could be treated as a “decree” to attract Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, holding that such an interpretation would defeat the scheme of the Patents Act and lead to the creation of an unintended appellate layer.

The Court further held that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act cannot be used to enlarge the scope of appeals beyond what is expressly provided, and that the non-obstante clause under Section 13(2) reinforces the legislative intent to restrict appellate remedies.

Accordingly, the Commercial Appeal was dismissed.

Counsel for the Appellants (Petitioners): Pranshul Dube, Asma Nadaf, Maithri Porwal, Advs.; Counsel for the Respondents: Ashish Mehta, Ashutosh Mishra, Advs.; Amicus Curiae: Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate

Case Title: Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke & Anr. v. Controller of Patent and Designs & Ors.

Bench: Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande

Date of Judgment: 09.03.2026