ITC Limited vs Philip Morris Products S.A. & Ors.

C. Hari Shankar, J

After some hearing, both sides are agreeable to a disposal of this appeal.

Having heard learned Counsel for both sides, this Court had expressed an opinion that the impugned order does not satisfactorily answer all the submissions advanced by the appellant in his (i) Written Statement of Opposition dated 4th September 2020, (ii) reply under Rule 59 of the Patents Rules, 2003 and the documents filed therewith on 1st March 2021 and (iii) his written submissions filed before the learned Controller.

The respondents are agreeable, in order not to protract the proceedings, to the impugned order being set aside and the matter remanded to a competent officer in the Office of the Controller General of Patents to de novo hear and decide the appellant”s objections. Needless to say, the officer dealing with the matter is required to deal with each submission advanced by the appellant in the aforesaid Notice of Opposition, Rule 59 reply and written submissions, one way or the other.

This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions of either side.

Both sides shall be given an opportunity to personally present themselves before the officer who is deciding the matter on 5th July 2023.

The officer hearing the matter should bear in mind that this is the second round of litigation. As such, the officer is expected to deal with all aspects of the matter which are placed in writing or argued by both sides before her or him. Needless to say, the rights of both sides, against any order which may come to be passed in this case shall remain reserved.

Let the de novo order be passed positively within eight weeks from 5th July 2023.

This appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.