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
| 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) |
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.
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.
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 court held that a writ petition can challenge a patent order despite alternative remedies, emphasizing the need for reasoned decisions in patent matters.
The need for a systematic manner in conducting pre-grant oppositions and the right to file affidavits of own experts in rebuttal.
The court highlighted the importance of timely adjudication in patent opposition proceedings and mandated adherence to procedural timelines.
The non-binding nature of Opposition Board recommendations and the Controller's discretion in deciding the qualitative merit of the recommendations.
Importance of providing notice and opportunity to all parties involved in a case before passing an order.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.