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.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. 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-grant opposition under Section 25(1) of the Act, opposing the grant of patent on several grounds including lack of novelty under Section 25(1)(b) and non-patentability under Section 25(1)(f) read with Section 3(d) and 3(e) of the Act as well as objecting to the scope of the amended claims.

3. In addition to the Petitioner, six other persons also filed pre-grant oppositions against the patent application. Respondent No. 2 filed a reply to the pre-grant opposition on 18.06.2021 and took various objections. Parties filed their respective pleadings with documents as well as post-hearing written submissions. On 06.04.2022, Respondent No. 2 made certain modifications in the claims, however, Petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity to respond to the proposed amendments. Vide impugned order dated 08.04.2022, Respondent No. 1 granted the subject patent and aggrieved by the same, present petition has been filed by the Petitioner.

4. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that the pre-grant opposition was filed before Respondent No. 1 on several grounds, viz. (a) lack of novelty under Section 25(1)(b); (b) prior use/knowledge in India under Section 25(1)(d); (c) lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja); (d) non-patentable under Section 25(1)(f) read with Section 3(d) and (e); and (e) insufficiency of disclosure under Section 25(1)(g) of the Act. While granting the subject patent, Respondent No. 1 has not only passed a non-speaking and unreasoned order but has not even dealt with the substantive grounds raised by the Petitioner, more particularly the ground of non-patentability under Section 3(d) of the Act. Reading of the impugned order would show that Respondent No. 1 has not even taken note of the ground raised by the Petitioner under Section 3(d), despite the same being raised