Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ARIF S.DOCTOR
AIC246 AG & Co. KG – Appellant
Versus
Patent Office of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. patent rejected under section 25(1) without section 14 hearing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. chapters iv and v establish distinct parallel processes. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. precedents mandate separate section 14 applicant hearing. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. opposition under section 25(1) self-contained, no extra hearing. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. processes distinct; section 14 hearing mandatory before refusal. (Para 28) |
| 6. order set aside; remanded for section 14 compliance. (Para 29) |
JUDGEMENT :
ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
1. The captioned Petition impugns an Order dated 26th June 2023 (“the impugned order”) passed by Respondent No. 2, i.e., Controller of Patents, by which the Petitioner’s Patent Application No. 201627001750 for “Combinations Comprising a Triazole Fungicide and a Biological Control Agent" was rejected solely under the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Patents Act”) on account of a pre-grant opposition filed by Respondent No. 3. Admittedly, the Petitioner was not given a hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act before the patent was refused nor after the order passed under Section 15 of
Patent examination under Chapter IV (mandatory Section 14 hearing) and pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) (Chapter V) are distinct parallel processes; refusal requires Section 14 hearing and Se....
The need for a systematic manner in conducting pre-grant oppositions and the right to file affidavits of own experts in rebuttal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments made to patent claims at the instance of the Controller, pursuant to the directions of the Controller, do not violate the principle....
Procedural irregularities in patent opposition must respect principles of natural justice, and amendments to patent claims cannot broaden their scope.
A pre-grant opposition is in the nature of an aid to examination and is not an adversarial proceeding and thus no right of the Petitioner can be said to be violated so as to invoke the extraordinary ....
Quasi-judicial orders under Patents Act dismissing post-grant oppositions must provide cogent reasons and technical analysis under Section 25(2)(c); unreasoned orders are set aside and remanded.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
