Shivaji Rathore 18 - Dec-2025
The Madras High Court has categorically held that an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge while deciding a statutory patent appeal under the Patents Act, 1970. The Court reiterated that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not permit a second appeal within the High Court once a statutory appeal has been decided.
A Division Bench comprising Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan, by order dated December 12, 2025, dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by Italian pharmaceutical company Italfarmaco SPA, holding that the litigation was not maintainable in law.
Key Observation of the Court
The Division Bench observed:- “Any expansion of scope of the Commercial Courts Act will defeat its objectives and there is no ambiguity regarding appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions under Section 13 of the said Act. There is no scope to invoke Clause 15 of Letters Patent for the purpose of entertaining the present Original Side Appeal.”
Background of the Dispute:- The controversy arose after the Patent Office rejected a patent application filed by Italfarmaco SPA. Aggrieved by the rejection, the company invoked its statutory remedy and filed an appeal before the Madras High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The statutory appeal was heard by a Single Judge of the High Court, who upheld the decision of the Patent Office and dismissed Italfarmaco’s challenge.
Attempt to Invoke Intra-Court Appeal:- Unsuccessful before the Single Judge, Italfarmaco sought to challenge the order by filing an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. At the stage of scrutiny, the High Court Registry raised a serious objection on maintainability, questioning how an intra-court appeal could lie once a statutory patent appeal had already been adjudicated.
Appellant’s Argument:- Responding to the Registry’s objection, Italfarmaco contended that:- The order passed by the Single Judge should be treated as an original order; Such an order, according to the appellant, was amenable to an intra-court appeal, akin to orders passed in writ proceedings; Since patent disputes qualify as “commercial disputes,” the Commercial Courts Act should not bar an intra-court appeal.
Legal Issue Before the Court The central question before the Division Bench was: Whether an intra-court appeal is maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge while deciding a statutory appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, in light of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?
Interpretation of Section 13, Commercial Courts Act
Rejecting the appellant’s submissions, the Division Bench undertook a detailed examination of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, which governs appellate remedies in commercial disputes.
The Court held that:- Section 13 strictly restricts the scope of appeals in commercial matters; Appeals are permitted only in circumstances expressly provided by statute; The Act was enacted to ensure speedy disposal of high-value commercial disputes, and permitting multiple appeals would frustrate this objective.
Patents Act Provides Only One Appeal:- The Bench emphasised that appeals in patent matters are specifically governed by Section 117A of the Patents Act, which provides: A single statutory appeal to the High Court against orders of the Patent Office; No provision for a further appeal within the High Court once that appeal is decided. The Court categorically held that once a statutory appeal under Section 117A is adjudicated by a Single Judge, the law does not contemplate any further intra-court appeal. Commercial Courts Act Prevails Over Letters Patent A significant aspect of the ruling is the Court’s clarification on the overriding effect of the Commercial Courts Act.
The Bench held that:- The Commercial Courts Act is a special legislation with a clear appellate framework; Letters Patent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory restrictions; Where a special statute restricts appeals, general provisions such as Clause 15 of the Letters Patent must yield. Accordingly, the Court upheld the Registry’s objection and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the intra-court appeal, holding that it was barred by law and contrary to the scheme of the Commercial Courts Act and the Patents Act. Legal Significance of the Ruling This judgment reinforces several important principles:- No second appeal lies within the High Court in statutory patent matters; Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act must be strictly interpreted; Letters Patent appeals cannot be used to circumvent legislative intent; The ruling strengthens the objective of expeditious resolution of commercial and IP disputes. The decision is expected to have a significant impact on patent litigation strategy, particularly for multinational corporations seeking multiple appellate remedies.
Case Details
Case Title: ITALFARMACO SPA v. Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Case Number: OSA (CAD) No. 72443 of 2025
Court: Madras High Court
Date of Decision: December 12, 2025
For Appellant: Advocate Arun C. Mohan
For Respondent: Central Government Standing Counsel S. Diwakar
