Natural Justice | Intellepedia

Patent Opposition Board Report: Can you challenge it before the final order?

A close-up of a formal legal document stamped in red with the word "PRELIMINARY," resting on a dark wooden desk. The document shows sections headed "Findings of Fact," "Conclusions of Law," and "Recommendation," with a blank date line at the bottom. A gavel is partially visible in the upper right corner.

When is a patent opposition board recommendation ripe for a writ petition, and when is it simply too soon? The Madras High Court tackled this question in a dispute between E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC and Zydus Healthcare Limited over a cancer-treatment patent, with significant implications for patent opposition board recommendation practice in India.

Fair Hearing First: Delhi HC Sets Aside Patent Refusal Over New Grounds in Order

A blue wooden background with the words “drilling holes into patent refusals?” in black text, alongside an orange power drill angled toward the text.

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Controller of Patents’ refusal of a Wirtgen GMBH patent application, finding that new objections introduced for the first time in the final order – without prior notice – violated the applicant’s right to a fair hearing.

A tipsy decision by the Trademark office? Court clarifies on geographical association of TAJPURIYA

A simple black and white illustration of two silhouetted figures standing together. One speech bubble says “SO?” while another larger bubble says “TAJPURIYA? That’s a tribe!” The image appears to represent a discussion or disagreement about whether the word TAJPURIYA refers to a tribal name.

In the case of M/S Ads Agro Industries Pvt Ltd vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, a liquor company applied to register the mark TAJPURIYA for alcoholic beverages. The Trade Marks Office first objected that the mark was geographical. However, in the final refusal order, it stated that TAJPURIYA was the name of an indigenous tribe associated with alcohol rituals. The High Court examined whether such a change in grounds was legally valid.

Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition Are Independent Proceedings; Composite Disposal Unsustainable

Bold text reading “NO SHORTCUTS,” with “NO” in red and “SHORTCUTS” in white, set against a dark background featuring Court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the Controller cannot collapse examination and pre-grant opposition into a single composite order to sidestep a Section 14 hearing. The decision reinforces natural justice and procedural discipline in Indian patent prosecution.

Should a pre-grant notice be issued before patent grant to facilitate filing of divisional applications? Court clarifies

Minimalist office interior with wooden shelves and books on a white wall, featuring a bold “Divide & Conquer” wall graphic under a hanging lamp above a wooden desk.

Delhi High Court clarifies that no pre-grant notice is required under Section 43 and divisional applications must be filed before patent grant.

Notarized document from a foreign Country must be accepted, says Calcutta High Court in Trademark case

A person stands facing three doors labeled "Foreign Notary," "Notary" (center), and "Indian Notary," symbolizing the dilemma of choosing between different types of notarization for legal documents.

Calcutta HC rules notarized foreign documents valid without apostille in Marriott trademark opposition, reinforcing fair procedure and natural justice.

Patent Refusal Cannot Be a Single Line: Calcutta High Court Calls for Reasoned Orders

Yellow road marking with bold black text reading “SINGLE LINE. DO NOT CROSS,” symbolizing the lack of reasoning in the Stromag GmbH patent refusal—a single-line decision that violated principles of natural justice.

In the case of Stromag GmbH vs. Controller General of Patents, the Calcutta High Court ruled that patent refusal orders must contain detailed reasoning. A single-line dismissal, the court said, does not meet the legal standards of a quasi-judicial function and is unsustainable.

Non-Disclosure of Prior Art in Hearing Notice Violates Natural Justice, Rules Delhi High Court

3D illustration of repeating blue molecular structures representing chemical compounds, symbolizing scientific formulations or agrochemical compositions.

In Croda Inc. v. Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court emphasized procedural fairness and ruled that the non-disclosure of prior art in a hearing notice constitutes a breach of natural justice. The Court remanded the case for fresh evaluation.

Refusal without Effective Hearing? Not Valid: Delhi High Court on technical glitches in trademark hearings

In the case of Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks, the Delhi High Court set aside a refusal of a Class 16 application. In simple terms, the Court said that an order passed without an effective hearing, and without dealing with the documents on file, cannot stand.

Delhi HC Remands Oxidation Process Patent Rejection, Cites Invalid Section 2(1)(j) and 59 Findings

Green chalkboard with various hand-drawn organic chemistry structures and chemical equations, including benzene rings, hydroxyl groups, and molecular formulas like N₂ + 3H₂ → 2NH₃, representing chemical reactions and compounds.

In the case of Treibacher Industrie AG v. Assistant Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court set aside the refusal of a patent application for a catalytic oxidation process. It held that the amended claims qualified as a process invention and were within the permissible scope of amendment under Section 59.