Madras High Court
(T)CMA(PT)/116/2023 of Ospedale San Raffaele S.r.I. Vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs on 8 October 2026
(T)CMA(PT) No. 116 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
(T)CMA(PT) No. 116 of 2023
CNR: {HCMA010943182023}
1. Ospedale San Raffaele S.r.I.
Via Olgettina n. 60
Milan, Italy,
2. Fondazione Telethon
Via Carlo Spinola 16
1-00154, Rome
Italy,
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs Government of India, Patent Office Intellectual Property Rights Building GST Road, Guindy Chennai - 600 032
..Respondent(s)
That the order dated 27 July 2018 and issued by the Respondent on 27 July 2018 be set aside and the application No. 5430/CHENP/2007 for Patent be allowed to proceed to grant.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Shivathanu Mohan
for M/s.S.Ramasubramanian Associates
For Respondent(s):
Mr.P.R.Ramesh Babu
(T)CMA(PT) No. 116 of 2023
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
Though elaborate submissions on the merit of the appeal have been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, after carefully perusing the records and also taking into account the arguments on merits, I find that there may not be any necessity for me to dwell any further into the arguments advanced on the merits for the simple reasons that the International Application in PCT/EP06/02266 has been filed on 26.05.2026. The period of twenty years has already lapsed and therefore in my considered opinion nothing actually survives for any further consideration, especially in the light of the fact that the appeal itself is consequent to the refusal of the application for issuance of patent.
2. In view of the above, without expressing anything on the merits of the claims of the petitioners and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal is dismissed on the limited ground that the relief sought for has become infructuous.
3. This Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA
(T)CMA(PT) No. 116 of 2023
P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA (T)CMA(PT) No. 116 of 2023 08-10-2026