Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved