-Roshan Bali, Research Intern

In the recent case of Syngenta Ltd. vs. Controller of Patents and Designs, questions of law were raised concerning Section 16(1) of the Patents Act. The Deputy Controller had rejected the parent application on the ground that there was no objection to plurality and that disclosure of more than one invention in the parent application is essential. Thus, an appeal was filed in the Delhi High Court, the Court scrutinized Section 16(1) and interpreted that the Applicant may file the Divisional Application suo motu and not only after the Controller has raised objections on it. The Court, therefore, disagreed with the view taken in the previous case of Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v. The Controller of Patents. The Court also interpreted that claims are not required to be included in the provisional application, and thus it would be sufficient if a divisional application is filed in respect of an invention disclosed in the provisional or complete specification. The Court, however, could not overturn the decision of the Boehringer Ingelheim case therefore, it referred the present dispute after identifying the issues to the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and asked them to revisit the judgement given in Boehringer Ingelheim.