The Madras High Court in the case of Victaulic Company v The Controller of Patents and Designs, CMA (PT) No. 14 of 2024, judgment dated 26th July 2024, set aside the order of the Controller of Patents whereby the Controller had refused to proceed with a divisional application on the ground that the claims of the divisional application were not based on the originally filed claims of the parent application.

The Court held that said order was in violation of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Syngenta Limited v Controller of Patents and Designs (2023 SCC Online Del 6392) wherein it was held that a divisional application can be directed to an invention disclosed in the specification of the parent application. The Madras High Court noted that the Syngenta judgment does not mandate the claims of the divisional application to find their origin in the claims of the parent application. Noting that the Controller had passed the impugned order despite being apprised of the Division Bench’s judgment, the Madras High Court set aside the order for being in violation of the Syngenta judgment and directed re-examination of the application by a Controller other than the one who had passed the impugned order.