2022 Supreme(Del) 2212

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JYOTI SINGH, J.
Best Agrolife Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Controller of Patents and Another – Respondents
W.P. (C)-IPD No. 11 of 2022, C.M. Nos. 32, 54, 55 of 2022
Decided On : 07-07-2022

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 jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

PATENT - PRE-GRANT OPPOSITION - SECTION 25(1)(F) READ WITH SECTION 3(D) OF THE PATENTS ACT, 1970 - NON-PATENTABLE INVENTION - ENHANCED EFFICACY - SYNERGISTIC EFFECT - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION - AMENDMENT OF CLAIMS - PROCEDURE - SECTION 57 OF THE ACT - REMAND.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner filed a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, opposing the grant of patent on several grounds including lack of novelty, prior use/knowledge in India, lack of inventive step, non-patentability under Section 25(1)(f) read with Section 3(d) and (e) of the Act as well as objecting to the scope of the amended claims. Respondent No. 1 granted the subject patent and aggrieved by the same, present petition has been filed by the Petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

1. The impugned order is non-speaking and unreasoned and does not even touch upon the grounds of opposition under Section 3(d), despite the same being raised in the pleadings and written submissions and extensive arguments being addressed in respect thereof. 2. Respondent No. 1 did not consider the submissions of the Petitioner with respect to Section 3(e) of the Act and granted the patent solely on the basis of manipulated and unauthenticated data submitted by Respondent No. 2. 3. Respondent No. 1 allowed the amendment to the claims made by Respondent No. 2 on 06.04.2022 i.e. two days prior to the impugned order, without notifying the Petitioner, which is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the procedure prescribed in the Manual of Practice and Procedure, by the Patent Office.

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order is non-speaking and unreasoned and does not even touch upon the grounds of opposition under Section 3(d), despite the same being raised in the pleadings and written submissions and extensive arguments being addressed in respect thereof? 2. Whether Respondent No. 1 considered the submissions of the Petitioner with respect to Section 3(e) of the Act and granted the patent solely on the basis of manipulated and unauthenticated data submitted by Respondent No. 2? 3. Whether Respondent No. 1 allowed the amendment to the claims made by Respondent No. 2 on 06.04.2022 i.e. two days prior to the impugned order, without notifying the Petitioner, which is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the procedure prescribed in the Manual of Practice and Procedure, by the Patent Office?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. 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 jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The impugned order is non-speaking and unreasoned and does not even touch upon the grounds of opposition under Section 3(d), despite the same being raised in the pleadings and written submissions and extensive arguments being addressed in respect thereof. This constitutes a violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Respondent No. 1 did not consider the submissions of the Petitioner with respect to Section 3(e) of the Act and granted the patent solely on the basis of manipulated and unauthenticated data submitted by Respondent No. 2. This is also a violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Respondent No. 1 allowed the amendment to the claims made by Respondent No. 2 on 06.04.2022 i.e. two days prior to the impugned order, without notifying the Petitioner, which is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the procedure prescribed in the Manual of Practice and Procedure, by the Patent Office.

Final Decision: Writ Petition is partially allowed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to reconsider the issues, encapsulated above and pass a reasoned and speaking order within 8 weeks from today.