Back
JYOTI SINGH
Best Agrolife Limited – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Controller of Patents – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JYOTI SINGH, J.
1. Present writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 08.04.2022, passed by Respondent No. 1/Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, dismissing the pre-grant opposition and allowing the grant of patent No. IN 394568 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject patent’) in favour of Respondent No. 2/GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd.
2. Before examining the rival contentions raised by the parties, I may note the factual score as set out in the petition, to the extent relevant to the controversy involved in the present petition. Respondent No. 2 filed patent application No. 284/MUM/2014 for ‘A synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron’ on 27.01.2014. Patent application was published under Section 11A of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) on 11.09.2015. Respondent No. 1 issued First Examination Report on 31.05.2018, objecting to the claims inter-alia on grounds of lack of novelty, inventive step etc. Reply was filed by Respondent No. 2 on 19.07.2018 to the said Examination Report and subsequently, Respondent No. 2 amended the claims. On 04.03.2021, Petitioner filed a pre-
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 ....
The Controller must provide a reasoned decision on pre-grant opposition addressing all raised grounds, particularly under Sections 3(d) and 3(e), to ensure compliance with natural justice standards.
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.
The need for a systematic manner in conducting pre-grant oppositions and the right to file affidavits of own experts in rebuttal.
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 recommendation of the Opposition Board is not binding, and a writ petition challenging it is not maintainable; objections can be raised during hearings before the Controller.
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
