Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3132 (MAD)

BIOPOLIS, S.L v. Controller of Patents and Designs

CMP/5656/2026 · 2026-04-22

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

__________ Page1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY CMP No. 5656 of 2026 in CMA(PT)SR.No.62347 of 2021 Biopolis, S.L C/o Catedratico Agustin Escardino Belloch 9 Edificio 2- Parc Cientific de la Universitat de Valencia, E-46980, Paterna (Valencia), Spain, Rep by its Power of Attorney R.R. Nair, F-5, Ashwamedha Apartments, 119, Velachery Main Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. (Mr.R.R.Nair recognised as power of attorney of sole appellant vide Court order dated 19.02.2026 made in CMP.No.2051 of 2026 by NAVJ) ..Petitioner/Appellant Vs Controller of Patents and Designs Government of India, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Rights Building, GST Road, Chennai 032. ..Respondent Prayer : Petition is filed to condone the delay of 1610 days in representing in CMA(PT)SR.No.62347 of 2021. For Petitioner: Mr. D. Ferdinand for BFS Legal For Respondent: Mr.Ravi Meenakshi Sundaram, SPC https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________ Page2 of 2 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. KJ ORDER The intending appellant has applied to condone the delay of 1610 days in re-presenting the appeal. In the affidavit in support of the application, it is stated that the appeal was prepared in July 2021, but the Intellectual Property Appellate Board had been abolished by then. It is also stated that the Intellectual Property Rights Division of this Court became functional in March 2023 and that the appeal was returned on the ground that it was not in the prescribed format. It is also stated that the intending appellant is an entity carrying on business in Spain and that fulfillment of the requirements of the Registry took considerable time. 2. The respondent opposes this application on the ground that the intending appellant has not explained the delay. 3. Notwithstanding the length of delay, upon considering the reasons set out in the affidavit, I am satisfied that sufficient cause is shown. Therefore, this application is allowed. 22-04-2026 KJ CMP No. 5656 of 2026 in CMA(PT)SR.No.62347 of 2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis