CASE TITLE: BEST AGROLIFE LTD. V. DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS, INDIA & ANR.
Coram : Justice Jyoti Singh
Decision Date : July 07 2022
In a recent order passed by Justice Jyoti Singh in the Delhi High Court, it was observed that non-consideration of grounds raised in a pre-grant opposition by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs is a violation of the principles of natural justice.
The order came in a case where the respondent had filed a patent application for 'A synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron'. The Deputy Controller has issued a First Examination Report where he objected to the respondent’s application stating lack of novelty and inventive step. The respondent filed a reply with amended claims. The petitioner had later filed a pre-grant (of the patent) opposition stating several grounds such as-
a) lack of novelty
b) prior use/knowledge in India
c) lack of inventive step
d) non-patentability
e) insufficiency of disclosure.
Six other individuals had also filed pre-grant oppositions against the application. The petitioner was not given notice of the amendments made by the respondent.
The Deputy Controller had dismissed the petitioner’s claims, thus the concerned writ petition was filed to quash the order. The petitioner argued that while passing the order the Deputy Controller did not take all the grounds stated into consideration, especially the ground of non-patentability.
The court first dealt with the maintainability of the petition; the respondents raised that the petitioner had an alternative means of resolution through a post-grant (of patent) application. The court in response held that if the petitioner could prove manifest error and a violation of principles of natural justice on part of the Deputy Controller, they could not be non-suited.
On the question of violation of principles of natural justice. The pre-grant opposition was rejected on finding such data that was however not related to the real question of opposition and held that the Deputy Controller should have properly examined all grounds put forward.
The court then opined on the amendments made by the respondent without notice to the petitioner. The first amendment which was a correction of a mere typographical error was overlooked.
The second amendment however was an incorporation of “the exact range of thickener to bring it within the scope of the specifications”; this amendment was not accepted.
The court then finally observed that “the impugned order suffers from legal infirmities, as aforementioned, being a non-speaking and unreasoned order, besides there being violations of principles of natural justice.”
Comentarios