Madras High Court
Caleb Suresh Motupalli vs Controller Of Patents on 20 March, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Rev.Appl.No.37 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Rev. Appl.No.37 of 2025
in
CMA(PT) No.2 of 2024
Caleb Suresh Motupalli
Rottellaillu House of Bread
29-37-31 Eluru Road, (Upstairs)
Vijayawada-520 002,
Andhra Pradesh .. Petitioner
(Party-in-Person)
Vs.
Controller of Patents
Patent Office, Intellectual Property Building,
G.S.T. Road, Guindy,
Chennai-600 032
Tamil Nadu .. Respondent
Prayer : Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of
CPC R/W. under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure pray
ing to (1) review and set aside the judgment dated 29.01.2025 in
CMA(PT) No.2/2024, specifically regarding:a) Patent Error in In
terpretation of Section 10(4); (b) The erroneous attribution of best
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:09:09 pm )
1/6
Rev.Appl.No.37 of 2025
mode contention; c) The internal contradictions on technical effect;
d) the oversight of Controller's binding admissions; and e) Error in
Assessment of Technical Effect on Hardware under Section 3(k);
(2) Direct the Controller of Patents to: a) Grant the patent for Ap
plication No.5606/CHENP/2012 within 30 days; b) Complete all
grant formalities within 60 days; and c) Issue the Letters Patent
certificate; 3) Provide such timeline extensions as may be neces
sary, not exceeding 90 days in total; 4) Pass any other order(s) as
this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to
meet the ends of justice.
For Petitioner : Mr. Caleb Suresh Motupalli
Party-in-Person
For Respondent : Mr.A.R.Sakthivel, SPC
ORDER
The respondent had issued order dated 27.10.2021 under
Section 77(1)(f) and (g) of the Patents Act 1970, rejecting the review
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:09:09 pm )
application of the present review applicant. The said order was
impugned in CMA(PT) No.2 of 2024. By judgment dated
29.01.2025, the appeal was rejected both on the ground that the
appeal is not maintainable under Section 117A of the Patents Act
against the order in review and also on merits.
2. The party in person is present. He submits that the order
sought to be reviewed contains patent errors with regard to the
interpretation of Sections 10(4) and 3(k). As regards Section 3(k),
he submits that the judgment of Delhi High Court in Ferid Allani v.
Union of India, 2019 SCC Online Del 11867, was not taken into
consideration. He also submits that the best method of working
the invention was specified in the complete specification and that
the conclusion in relation thereto is untenable.
3. As noticed above, the order impugned in the earlier round
of litigation was an order in review application. Consequently, it
was held that the appeal is not maintainable under Section 117A.
Without prejudice to the said conclusion, the merits of the appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:09:09 pm )
were examined and the said appeal was eventually rejected. On
examining the grounds of review and the submissions of the
party in person, no error apparent is discernible and the party in
person is unable to establish any other sufficient reason for
entertaining this review application. Therefore, Rev. Appl. No.37
of 2025 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
20.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:09:09 pm )
To
The Controller of Patents
Patent Office, Intellectual Property Building,
G.S.T. Road, Guindy,
Chennai-600 032
Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:09:09 pm )
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.
kal
in
20.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:09:09 pm )
