The court mandates that patent authorities must timely and thoughtfully resolve pre-grant oppositions to prevent unjust delays in patent applications.

ORDER :

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice issued by the 3^rd respondent dated 06.09.2024 in respect of the 4^th pre-grant opposition and for a consequential direction to the 3^rd respondent to decide upon the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd pre-grant oppositions filed against the Patent Application No.408/CHENP/2014 in a time-bound manner within the period stipulated by this Court. The petitioner has also sought for a further direction to the 3^rd respondent to summarily dismiss every other pre-grant opposition received in the pending application and also to properly apply his mind on Rule 55(3)(b) of the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024, whenever a new pre-grant opposition is filed during the pendency of the present Patent Application filed by the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. The petitioner submitted a Patent Application in Indian Patent Application No.408/CHENP/2014, which claims the compound acalabrutinib, the active ingredient in the pharmaceutical product Calquence. The further case of the petitioner is that the said pharmaceutical product Calquence has been marketed in India since October, 2020 and it is approved for certain cancer treatments.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that after the present application was published in the Patent Journal as early as on 03.04.2015 and the First Examination Report was issued in 2017, for which the petitioner had filed a response, the 4^th respondent came up with a pre-grant opposition on 28.01.2019. Immediately, notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted a reply to the pre-grant opposition. Subsequently, hearing notices were issued and the matter was adjourned from time to time till 2022. Thereafter, the 2^nd pre-grant opposition was filed by the 5^th respondent on 18.04.2022. Notice was issued and the petitioner submitted a reply to the opposition and hearing notices were issued and the matter was adjourned from time to time and the written submissions were ultimately filed on 09.09.2023. By the time the final order was passed, the 3^rd pre-grant opposition was filed by the 6^th respondent on 02.02.2024. Once again, the 3^rd respondent issued notice based on the 3^rd pre-grant opposition. On receipt of the same, the petitioner filed a reply and thereafter hearing notices were issued. When this process was going on, the 4^th pre-grant opposition was filed by the 7^th respondent on 12.07.2024.

5. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner knocked the doors of this Court mainly on the ground that the inaction on the part of the authorities to decide the application based on the oppositions that has already been made, has resulted in one pre-grant opposition after another being filed, and this process has been going on from 2019 onwards. As a result, even if ultimately the petitioner is able to get the patent after rejection of all the oppositions, it can have effect only up to the year 2032, since the petitioner submitted the application during the year 2012. Thus, it is alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner is being denied the advantage of getting patent on account of the filing of one pre-grant opposition after another and the official respondents, without any application of mind are issuing notices in a mechanical fashion. Therefore, the petitioner has sought to challenge the present impugned notice dated 06.09.2024, which was issued pursuant to the 4^th pre-grant opposition, under Rule 55(3)(b) of the Patents