Madras HC: Police Superintendent not Liable For IO’s Delay In Filing Chargesheet or Closure Report  ||  Supreme Court: Provident Fund Dues Have Priority over a Bank’s Claim under the SARFAESI Act  ||  SC Holds Landowners Who Accept Compensation Settlements Cannot Later Seek Statutory Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Endless Investigations and Long Delays in Chargesheets Can Justify Quashing  ||  Delhi HC: Arbitrator Controls Evidence and Appellate Courts Cannot Reassess Facts  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: Economic Offender Cannot Seek Travel Abroad For Medical Treatment When Available In India  ||  SC: Governors and President Have No Fixed Timeline To Assent To Bills; “Deemed Assent” is Invalid  ||  SC: Assigning a Decree For Specific Performance of a Sale Agreement Does Not Require Registration    

Sonya Kapur vs. Controller General of Patent, Designs and Tradmark and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (12 Dec 2022)

Right to oppose an application for grant of a patent is a valuable right, and cannot be permitted to be defeated on technical considerations

MANU/DE/5106/2022

Intellectual Property Rights

Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 assails order 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.

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.

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, present Court is 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.

Accordingly, the impugned order 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. 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. Petition allowed.

Tags : PATENT   GRANT   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved