SC: Reserved Category Candidate Who Availed Prelims Relaxation Cannot Claim an Unreserved Seat  ||  SC: Public Sector Enterprises Cannot Act Against Retired Employees Without Clear Rules  ||  Supreme Court: Single FIR is Permissible in Mass Cheating Cases Arising From One Conspiracy  ||  SC: Courts Cannot Take Cognizance of Time-Barred Cheque Bounce Cases Without Condoning Delay  ||  SC: Exoneration in Disciplinary Proceedings Does Not Always Bar Criminal Prosecution  ||  SC: Judge Cannot Be Presumed Biased Merely Because a Litigant’s Relative Is Police or Court Staff  ||  Delhi HC: Delays From Medical Review Cannot Justify Ante-Dated Seniority For BSF Candidates  ||  Allahabad HC: Being ‘Proclaimed Offender’ Does Not Completely Bar Grant of Anticipatory Bail  ||  Delhi HC: Abortion by a Married Woman For Marital Discord is Legal under The MTP Act  ||  NCLT Kochi: Fraud Has No Time Limit and Directors Cannot Use Delay As a Defense    

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