Introduction:
The case of Syngenta Limited vs. Controller Of Patents And Designs centers on an appeal filed before the esteemed Delhi High Court, according to Section 117(A) of the Patents Act, 1970, wherein Syngenta Limited challenges the rejection of their divisional patent application by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The crux of the dispute revolves around the interpretation of Section 16(1) of the Patents Act and the contentious issue of whether a divisional application may be initiated ex proprio motu (on the applicant’s initiative) without the parent application featuring claims related to multiple inventions.
Facts:
1.Initial Patent Application (Parent Application) by Syngenta Limited:
• Filed on December 28, 2005.
• Title: “Agrochemical concentrate comprising an adjuvant and hydrotrope.”
• Disclosed three preferred combinations of hydrotrope and oil-based adjuvants.
2.Filing of Divisional Application:
• A divisional application was filed on September 15, 2011.
• This application covered a specific combination of the three preferred varieties mentioned in the parent application.
3.Grounds for Divisional Application Rejection:
• The Deputy Controller rejected the grant of the divisional application.
• Reason: The parent application lacked claims related to multiple inventions, which is required by Section 16(1) of the Patents Act.
• Notably, this objection should have been raised during the parent application’s First Examination Report (FER).
4.The Rationale for Divisional Application Rejection:
• The Deputy Controller deemed the divisional application unsuitable under Section 16 of the Act due to the absence of claims related to multiple inventions.
• Consequently, the patentability of the divisional application was rejected under Section 15 of the Act.
Syngenta Limited vs. Controller Of Patents And Designs: The Conundrum of Divisional Patent Applications in India
Aumirah Insights
See More insights

Patent Profanity: The Adverse Effect of Seemingly Innocent Terms in Patent Applications
In patent laws, clarity is not just a formality—it’s a requirement. Ambiguity in patent claims and specifications can lead to dire consequences, from rejections during

Geographical Indications (GI) and Cultural Heritage: Why IP Matters for Local Communities in India
Intellectual property protection, apart from providing protection to new innovations and creativity, has also embarked on safeguarding knowledge and innovations that have been nurtured for

Minority Shareholder Rights and Corporate Governance in India
In the modern corporate governance environment, safeguarding the rights of minority shareholders has become a basic plank of transparency, accountability, and fairness. Minority shareholders own