$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)-IPD 43/2025, CM 192/2025 & CM 193/2025 PROVIVI, INC. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Hari Subramaniam, Mr. Sanuj Das and Ms. Aditi Subramaniam, Advocates.

versus THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS.....Respondent Through: Mr. Satya Narain Swain, CGSC with Mr. Kautilya Birat, Mr. Ankush Kapoor and Mr. Vishwadeep, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

% 30.01.2026

1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs in respect of the application of the petitioner titled “MICRO ORGANISM FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INSECT PHEROMONES AND RELATED COMPOUNDS” submitted on 17.05.2018.

2. According to the petitioner, on 18.11.2016 PCT International Application No.PCT/US2016/062852 was filed claiming priority from US62/257,054 (18.11.2015) and US62/351,605 (17.06.2016). On 17.05.2018, a National Phase Application was filed in India by the petitioner as Indian Patent Application no.201817018490, the 31 months statutory deadline to enter the National Phase in India concluded on 18.06.2018 whereafter on 07.09.2018 the Patent Applications were published under Section 11A of the Patents Act, 1970.

3. Subsequent to the request for examination, the First Examination Report (hereinafter referred to as “FER”) was issued on 20.05.2022. The petitioner had submitted its reply to the FER on 19.07.2022. It is stated that the hearing notice was issued by the Controller on 03.05.2023 which according to the petitioner, was never received by its Agents in India. The hearing was scheduled on 19.05.2023 on which date, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, ostensibly on the ground that the hearing notice dated 03.05.2023 was not received. It is further stated that, by the order dated 30.05.2023, the Controller refused to accept the Patent Application. The petitioner also further submits that the said impugned order also was never received by the petitioner or its agents.

4. The petitioner claims that subsequently the petitioner, through its agent, filed an updated statement and undertaking on Form-3 as mandated by the statute on 06.07.2023 through online filing portal of the Indian Patent Office. Thereafter, the petitioner’s agent checked the status of the patent to verify the statement. It was that point of time the agent became aware of the refusal of the patent application by the Assistant Controller.

5. Having obtained the said information, the agent immediately wrote to the respondent on 25.08.2023 informing the office that neither the hearing notice nor any impugned order was received either by the agent or by the petitioner. It is also further stated that the petitioner’s agent kept following up with the Patent’s office either verbally or through the telephonic mode. Since all the efforts made by the agent went in vain, the petitioner wrote yet again to the respondent on 11.10.2024 requesting resolution of the said matter. It was to this communication/e-mail letter, that the respondent vide the reply dated 15.10.2024 informed the petitioner that the office records maintained by the Patent Office clearly indicated that the e-mails in respect of the hearing as also the information in respect of the impugned order were successfully delivered and despatched to the registered e-mail address of the petitioner.

6. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition assailing the impugned order on the aforesaid facts.

7. This Court has heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the impugned order and the other records available.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner v. Shukla and Brothers, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 785, has held that passing of a reasoned and a speaking order is an integral part of the principle of audi alteram partem. The Ho