a) Breach of natural justice due to lack of notice on critical objections. b) Misappreciation of documentary evidence, including the Deed of Assignment. c) The court upheld the right to withdraw pre-grant opposition. d) Directed reassignment to a different officer for fresh consideration within six months.

The High Court of Bombay set aside the impugned order, citing procedural lapses and failure to consider critical evidence.

Acts and Sections Discussed – The Patents Act, 1970 – Section 15, Section 25(1)(a) – Rules Under the Patents Act.

Subjects – Patent Rejection – Procedural Lapse – Natural Justice – Deed of Assignment – Partial Final Award – Change of Inventor – Confidentiality Breach – Netherlands Arbitration Institute – Opponent’s Withdrawal – Merits of Patent Application.

Nature of the Litigation – The petitioner, Euro-Apex B.V., challenged the rejection of its patent application by the Controller of Patents and Designs.

Relief Sought – The petitioner sought the court’s intervention to set aside the impugned order and to direct proper consideration of the patent application.

Reason for Filing the Case – The respondent’s refusal of the patent application on the grounds of alleged procedural non-compliance and issues related to change of inventor and assignment of rights.

Previous Decisions – The Controller of Patents and Designs rejected the patent application on 13th July 2021.

Issues – a) Whether the refusal of the patent application violated principles of natural justice. b) Whether the Deed of Assignment and Partial Final Award were adequately considered. c) Whether the change of inventor was justified and procedurally compliant. d) Whether the nullification of the Korean patent affected the Indian application.

Submissions/Arguments – a) Petitioner – Argued the impugned order was cryptic, failed to consider material evidence, and overlooked procedural fairness. b) Respondent – Defended the rejection, claiming procedural breaches and lack of proper documentation.