Bombay High Court

AIC246 AG AND CO KGversusTHE PATENT OFFICE OF INDIA THROUGH CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS

Decided: 27 February 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court held that the petition for correction of the judgment is maintainable and ordered the specified amendments.

Summary

The petitioner, AIC 246 AG & Co. KG, filed a commercial miscellaneous petition before the Bombay High Court seeking correction of several typographical and factual errors in a judgment dated 27 February 2026. The petitioner pointed out mis‑labelled headings, an incorrect title of the invention, and a mis‑attributed citation of the decision in Abraxis Bioscience LLC v. Union of India. The respondents objected to the wording of the headings and agreed to the correction of the case citation. The Court examined whether such corrections are permissible under the Civil Procedure Rules and found that they are, as they do not affect the substantive outcome of the case. Accordingly, the Court ordered that the judgment be amended to reflect the correct headings, invention title, and proper citation. The petition was allowed and the judgment was corrected as directed.

Issues considered

Whether a commercial miscellaneous petition can be entertained for correction of typographical and factual errors in a judgment.
Whether headings, titles of inventions, and case citations can be corrected without altering the substantive findings of the original judgment.

Subjects

judgment correction
civil procedure
patent law
commercial miscellaneous petition
errata

Judgment

                                          1/2                P4-COMMP-72-2025.DOC



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION


             COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 72 OF 2025
AIC 246 AG & CO. KG                                            ...Petitioner
          Versus
The Patent Office of India & Ors.                              ...Respondents
                                       _______
Mr. Dhiren Karamia i/b. Khaitan & Co., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rishi Mody a/w. Ms. Archi Gala, for Respondent No.3.
                                       _______
                                           CORAM :     ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
                                           DATE     : 9th MARCH, 2026
P.C.
1.        Mentioned. Not on board. Taken on board for Speaking to the Minutes of

the Judgment dated 27th February 2026.

2.        Mr. Mody, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 points out that, the

heading on page no. 14 which reads “Respondent’s Submissions” be corrected as

“Submissions by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2”.

3.        He also submits that in paragraph no. 28D, the sentence “The stand taken

by Respondents..” be corrected as “The stand taken by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2..”

4.        Mr. Karamia, learned counsel for the Petitioner points out that in

paragraph no. 1 the title of the invention is incorrectly mentioned as

'Combinations Comprising a Triazole Fungicide and a Biological Control Agent'

instead of 'Amorphous Letermovir and Solid Pharmaceutical Formulations

thereof for Oral Administration';




Vaibhav
                                          2/2                P4-COMMP-72-2025.DOC



5.        He also points out that the decision of Abraxis Bioscience LLC v. Union of

India referred to in paragraph 15 is a decision of Intellectual Property Appellate

Board (IPAB) and not of Delhi High Court.

6.        The Judgment be corrected accordingly.




                                                          [ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]




Vaibhav

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.