OIPD-1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE (Intellectual Property Right Division) IA NO. GA-COM/1/2025 [OLD NO AID/7/2021] In IPDAID/31/2024 NEOCULI PTY LTD. Vs THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR Date : 24th September, 2025. Appearance: Mr. Subhatosh Majumdar, Adv. Ms. Mitul Dasgupta, Adv, Mr. T. Das, Adv. Ms. Mallika Bothra, Adv. …for the applicants Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta, Adv. Ms. Priti Jain, Adv. …for the respondent The Court: This is an application for modification of an order dated 24 March, 2025 disposing of IPDAID/31/2024. By an order dated 24 March, 2024, this Court had while setting aside the impugned order dated 16 June, 2021 inter alia directed as follows: “The matter is remanded to the Controller who shall complete the hearing of the subject application afresh within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order. To obviate any element of predetermination, the Controller is directed to appoint any other Hearing Officer to act in terms of the above directions. It is made clear that there has been no adjudication on the merits of the case and all issues are left open to be decided afresh by the Hearing Officer.” Pursuant to the above order, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Hearing Officer had issued a fresh hearing notice and initiated 2 proceedings de novo. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that the Hearing Officer pursuant to the order dated 24 March, 2025 is permitting new prior art documents and new objections which were never raised in the earlier round of the proceedings. On behalf of the respondent Controller, it is submitted upon instructions that the Hearing Officer has erroneously interpreted the order dated 24 March, 2025 to mean that the entire process is to be initiated de novo from inception. It is further submitted on behalf of the Controller that the Hearing Officer has no objection to simply hearing the matter finally. In view of the above, it is clarified that the scope of hearing is limited to the objection and records as they stood prior to the impugned rejection of the order dated 16 June, 2021 and not to expand the scope of the hearing by permitting new documents to be cited or raising new grounds which were not part of the original proceeding. With the above clarifications, GA-COM/1/2025 in IPDAID/31/2024 stands allowed. The order dated 24 March, 2025 stands clarified to the above extent only. (RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.) s.Bag