Summary
In Croda Inc. v. Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court set aside the rejection of a patent application due to procedural lapses. The Court emphasized that the patent applicants must be given a fair chance to respond to all prior arts cited against their invention and directed a fresh hearing.
In the case of Croda Inc. v. Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court overturned the Controller’s decision to reject a patent application. The Court observed the need for procedural fairness in patent prosecutions and stated that patent applicants must be given a fair opportunity to address all prior art cited against their inventions. It remanded the matter for fresh consideration after finding that a key prior art was not included in the hearing notice.
Background:
Croda Inc. (hereinafter ‘Croda’) filed an Indian patent application no. 1432/DELNP/2013 titled “Agrochemical Adjuvants and Formulations”. The invention aimed to address the antagonistic effects of combining selective and non-selective herbicides using a formulation comprising an ethoxylated fatty acid mono-ester of sorbitan.
A First Examination Report objecting on grounds including lack of inventive step, non-patentability and lack of definitiveness was issued. Croda responded with amended claims. A hearing notice followed, reiterating the objections based on prior arts D1 and D2. Croda then attended the hearing and filed written submissions with further amended claims. The application was then refused by the Controller, relying additionally on prior art D3 for lack of inventive step and non-patentability. Aggrieved, Croda filed an appeal against the refusal order before the Delhi High Court.
Issue before the Court:
- Whether the Controller’s reliance on prior art D3 in the refusal order, without citing it in the hearing notice, violated principles of natural justice.
Key Arguments:
Croda argued that none of the applied prior arts (D1, D2) taught or suggested the claimed agrochemical formulation. Further, Croda contended that the Controller failed to follow due process during the proceedings of the subject application, as D3 was introduced for the first time in the refusal order. Croda further contended that they had no opportunity to respond to the same either at the hearing stage or in written submissions.
The Controller asserted that Croda failed to provide a comparison of increased activities or efficacy achieved by the invention, and that the selection of known elements with specific characteristics did not yield an inventive effect. The Controller also contended that the consideration of prior art D3 was an error on the part of the Patent Office, and that the agrochemical formulation was a substance obtained by a mere admixture, which resulted only in the aggregation of the properties of the components.
Court’s Analysis:
The Court observed that the hearing notice raised objections based on prior arts D1 and D2, but the impugned refusal order relied on D3 without prior notification to Croda. Relying on earlier decisions including Ucb Pharma Gmbh & Anr vs The Controller Of Patents And Designs, and Man Truck Bus Se vs Assistant Controller Of Patents, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 874, the Court reiterated that the Controller’s reliance on prior art D3 for the first time that were not discussed or considered in the FER or hearing notice was a clear violation of natural justice. The Court opined that the Patent Office, while exercising quasi-judicial functions cannot operate in an adversarial capacity and must ensure transparency by disclosing all objections and prior arts at the appropriate stage.
Conclusion:
The Court set aside the refusal order and allowed the appeal. The Court directed the Controller to issue a fresh hearing notice disclosing all the objections and relevant prior art documents. The Court instructed the Patent Office to re-evaluate the application in accordance with law and dispose of it within six months from the date of the order.
Citation: Croda Inc. v. Controller of Patents, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 490/2022 (Del. HC, August 4, 2025)
Article review and Accessibility review by: Sowmya S. Murthy
