SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Sonya Kapur - Appellant
Versus
Controller General of Patent, Designs and Tradmark - Respondent
W.P.(C)-IPD 59 of 2021 & CM 14 of 2021
Decided On : 12-12-2022




The right to oppose a patent application is a statutory right that must be honored, even if the opposition is not submitted in the correct format.

Headnote:(A) Patents Act, 1970 - Section 25 - Patent application - Challenge to the grant of Patent No. 363697 based on pre-grant opposition made by the petitioner - Court held the right to oppose is a statutory right that cannot be defeated by technical issues - The pre-grant opposition, though improperly formatted, must be considered by the Patent Office before granting a patent. (Paras 4, 6, 7, and 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner assails the Patent Office's order granting Patent No. 363697 to Respondent No. 3 without due consideration of a pre-grant opposition filed by the petitioner, which was deemed improperly formatted. (Para 4)

Findings of Court:
The Court quashed the order granting the patent and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for reconsideration, ensuring that the pre-grant opposition is properly accounted for. (Paras 8, 12)

Issues: Whether the Patent Office should consider the pre-grant opposition despite it not being in the correct format, and the implications of such omission on the rights of the parties involved. (Para 6)

Ratio Decidendi: The right to oppose a patent application is a valuable statutory right. Failure to consider a legitimate pre-grant opposition undermines the applicant's interests and contravenes the principles of justice. The court mandated that the Patent Office must review the opposition prior to any decision regarding the patent grant. (Paras 6, 8)

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. absence of respondents does not hinder proceeding. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petition challenges patent granted without opposition consideration. (Para 4)
3. technicalities should not defeat opposition rights. (Para 5 , 6)
4. petitioner's opposition must be reconsidered by patent office. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11)
5. order allows reconsideration of patent application with no costs. (Para 10 , 12)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. As per the orders passed by the learned Joint Registrar in the present case, service already stands affected on all the respondents.

2. Despite that, Respondent 1 alone is represented. Respondents 2 and 3 are unrepresented. They have remained absent before the learned Joint Registrar as well. Today, the matter was called out twice. They continue to remain absent.

3. As such, Respondents 2 and 3 do not appear to be serious in contesting the present proceedings. The Court, therefore, proceeds in their absence.

4. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails order dated 31st March 2021, passed by the Patent Office, whereby Patent No. 363697 has been granted to Respondent No. 3 without considering the pre-grant opposition filed by the petitioner.

5. No reply to this petition has been filed by any of the respondents including Respondent 1. However, Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for Respondent 1 submits that, though a pre-grant opposition was filed by the petitioner, opposing the grant of Patent No. 363697, the opposition was not filed in the proper format and following the proper procedure, as a result of which it could not be considered. He submits, on instructions, that he has no objection to the impugned order being set aside and the matter being remanded to the Patent Office for re-consideration, after taking into account the pre-grant opposition filed by the petitioner.

6. The right to oppose an application for grant of a patent is statutorily conferred by Section 25 of the Patents Act, 1970. It is a valuable right, and cannot be permitted to be defeated on technical considerations. The absence of a pre-grant opposition also confers rights on the patent holder, once the patent is granted.

7. In that view of matter, and given the fact that it is conceded that a pre-grant opposition was, in fact, filed by the petitioner, albeit in the wrong format, I am of the opinion that the interests of justice would require the said pre-grant opposition to be considered before the Patent Office takes a call on the grant of patent as sought by Respondent No. 3.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31st March 2021 is quashed and set aside. The application of Respondent No. 3 for grant of Patent No. 363697 is remanded to the Patent Office for re-consideration. The Patent Office would also take into account the pre-grant opposition filed by the petitioner.

9. Both sides would be given an opportunity of hearing before any view is taken in the matter.

10. As Respondents 2 and 3 have been absent in today's proceedings, let a copy of this order be communicated by the Registry by email as well as speed post to Respondents 2 and 3.

11. It is made clear that the Patent Office shall restrict its consideration to the pre-grant opposition filed by the petitioner and shall not allow any other pre-grant opposition to be filed, to the application filed by Respondent 3 for grant of patent.

12. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top