OIPD-12 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE (Intellectual Property Rights Division) IPDPTA/14/2023 AROA BIOSURGERY LIMITED VS CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND ANR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR Date : 24th June, 2025. Appearance: Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Sudhakar Prasad, Adv. Mr. P.Bose, Adv. …for the appellant Mr. Rajashree Roy, Adv. Ms. Sumita Sarkar, Adv. …for the respondents The Court: This appeal has been filed challenging an order dated 20th April, 2018 arising out of an application being 308/KOLNP/2011. The invention titled “Tissue Scaffolds Derived From Forestomach Extracellular Matrix” intends to provide a number of advantages over prior tissue scaffolds and is intended to be useful in a variety of clinical and therapeutic applications including wound repair and tissue regeneration. It is alleged that Forestomach Matrix scaffolds of the invention provide a number of advantages over prior tissue scaffolds, and are useful in a variety of clinical and therapeutic application. The core aspect of the subject invention features an implantable tissue scaffold device for supporting breast tissue in a 2 patient, wherein the device comprises extracellular matrix of the propria- submucosa of the forestomach of a ruminant. The First Examination Report (FER) was issued to the appellant’s agent on 12 January, 2017 in which it was stated that the said application shall be deemed to have been abandoned under section 21(i) of the Act unless all the requirements raised in the said FER are complied within the period stated in the FER. Further objections were inter alia raised regarding claims 77 to 80 and 83 to 85 in view of the lack of novelty, claims 81 and 82 pertaining lacking inventive step, claims 1 to 24, 61 and 77 to 85 attracting sections 3(c) and 3(j) of the Act claims 32 to 60, 62 and 73 to 76 attracting 3(i) of Act claims 63 to 72 attracting 3(b) Act. In response, the appellant’s agent filed a response to the FER with their amended claims 1 to 43 and their observations regarding the objections raised in FER. In view of the outstanding objections under sections 10(4)(c) and 3(b) of the Patents Act 1970 and 13(1) of the Patents Rules 2006, by a hearing notice dated 30.10.2017 the appellant was given an opportunity of being heard under section 14 of the Patents Act before the respondent No. 2 on 21 November 2017. Upon being allowed by the respondent No. 2, the appellant submitted a written submission dated 20 November, 2017 along with retyped claim pages. The appellant by a letter dated 23 July, 2018 had also made a formal request for recording the change of name and address of the applicant from MESYNTHES LIMITED to its present name Aroa Biosurgery Limited. 3 By the impugned order, the respondent authorities have dismissed the application for patent primarily on the ground of Section 10(4)(c) and 3(b) and 3(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 read with Section 13(1) of the Patents Rules, 2016. The short question which arises for consideration is one of natural justice. It is contended that in passing the impugned order the Controller has rejected the same on the ground of non-patentability under Section 3(i) of the Act. Admittedly, the hearing notice did not contain the ground of section 3(i) of the Act nor was any objection raised in this regard by the respondent Controller. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that there are no reasons provided in passing the impugned order and that the respondent authorities have mechanically concluded that the subject application was non-patentable under section 3(i) of the Act. On behalf of the respondent authorities, it is fairly submitted that there is no mention of section 3(i) of the Act in the Hearing Notice. On a perusal of the hearing notice it appears that the objection under section 3(i)of the Act was never raised by the respondent authorities. The objection under section 3(i) of the Act has surfaced for the first time in the impugned order. The impugned order is also bereft of any reasons whatsoever. It is now well-settled that the reasons form the bedrock of any such order. (Uniworth Resorts vs. Ashok Mittal [2008] 1 CLT 1 and UPSC vs. Bibhu Prasad [2021] 4 SCC 516). 4 In view of the above, IPDPTA/14/2023 stands allowed. The matter is remanded back to the respondent Controller to hear the matter afresh within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order and after giving a right of opportunity to the appellant. It is made clear that there has been expression on the merits of the case and all issues are left open for the Controller to be decided in accordance with law. (RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.) S.Bag