With the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) pursuant to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, appeals from specified orders of the Controller of Patents now lie directly to the High Courts under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970.  This has raised an important question: does an intra‑court appeal (Letters Patent Appeal / Original Side Appeal) under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent lie from a Single Judge’s decision rendered in a Section 117A appeal?

This issue came to be examined by the Madras High Court in Italfarmaco S.P.A. vs Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs [OSA (CAD) SR No.72443 of 2025].

In the instant case, the Appellant’s patent application was rejected by the Deputy Controller under Section 15 of the Patents Act. The Appellant availed the statutory appellate remedy under Section 117A by filing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the Madras High Court, which came to be dismissed by the Single Judge. Thereafter, the Appellant sought to prefer an intra-court appeal/ Original Side Appeal before the Commercial Appellate Division of the Madras High Court by invoking Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

At the threshold, the Registry of the High Court raised an objection to the maintainability of the Original Side Appeal under clause 15 of Letters Patent.

To surmount the maintainability objection, the Appellant advanced, in substance, two arguments: 

• The Single Judge’s decision in the Section 117A appeal ought to be treated as an “order‑in‑original”, such that an intra‑court appeal would lie under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, analogising the position to writ appeals.
• Issues relating to patents being commercial disputes under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, an appeal from the Single Judge’s judgment should be maintainable before the Commercial Appellate Division under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act.

The Division Bench acknowledged that issues relating to patents are indeed “commercial disputes” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(xvii). The Court proceeded to examine whether, given that characterisation, an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act was entertainable on the facts. 

The Court noted that the Commercial Courts Act is a special enactment and therefore prevails over the Letters Patent. 

Section 13(1A) permits an appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court from a judgment or order of a Commercial Division, subject to an express proviso: an appeal shall lie only from such orders passed by a Commercial Division as are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended), and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 13(2), by reason of its non‑obstante clause, expressly overrides the Letters Patent and forecloses resort to Clause 15 as an independent appellate route.

Order XLIII of the CPC provides an exhaustive list of interlocutory orders against which an appeal is maintainable, such as orders granting or refusing injunctions, appointment and discharge of receivers, or rejecting applications under specific procedural provisions.

The Court held that an order passed by a Single Judge in a statutory patent appeal under Section 117A does not fall within any of the categories enumerated under Order XLIII. Put differently, the combined effect of Section 13(1A) (which does not positively authorise an appeal from such an order) and Section 13(2) (which bars any appeal outside the Act’s framework) is that no intra‑court appeal lies from a Single Judge’s decision in a Section 117A patent appeal.

The Division Bench affirmed the Registry’s objection. The Court observed that any expansion of the scope of the Commercial Courts Act would defeat its objectives, and that there was no ambiguity regarding appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions under Section 13. Since an appeal had been provided to the High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act and had been adjudicated by the learned Single Judge as a Miscellaneous Appeal, an order not falling within any category enumerated under Order XLIII, the intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent was held to be not maintainable, as it was not contemplated under the Act.