Pre-Grant Opposition | Intellepedia

Promised and Forgotten: How a Pre-Grant Opposition swallowed a hearing

A rusted file drawer label reading "Broken Promises" - representing the Controller of Patents' unfulfilled Section 14 hearing assurance in a pre-grant opposition case decided by the Bombay High Court.

The Bombay High Court, in AIC246 AG & Co. KG v. The Patent Office of India, has set aside a patent rejection that bypassed the mandatory Section 14 examination hearing, ruling that a pre-grant opposition hearing under Section 25(1) cannot substitute for an applicant’s statutory right to be heard before refusal.

All the Trappings! Bombay High Court Bars Second Patent Appeals

Illustration of closed courthouse gates symbolising the bar on second patent appeals in India under Section 100A CPC — Bombay High Court ruling on patent appeal maintainability

When the Bombay High Court dismissed a patent applicant’s appeal after a Single Judge upheld the Controller’s refusal, the applicant tried a second round before the Division Bench. The court’s answer, drawing on Section 100A CPC and the “trappings of a Civil Court” doctrine closes a significant procedural door for Indian patent litigants.

AI Inventorship and the DABUS Refusal in India: Patent Opponent’s Submissions in the Patent Office Order

In Patent Application No. 202017019068, Stephen L. Thaler named DABUS, an artificial intelligence system, as the inventor of a food container invention. Although the Indian Patent Office refused the pre-grant opposition filed by Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala in a separate order, its order refusing the application substantially Includes/mentions the opponent’s statutory and comparative-law submissions on inventorship and proof of right.

Mere Admixture or True Innovation? Crystal Crop’s Herbicidal Composition Fails the Synergy Test

A hand writing the word “SYNERGY” above the equation “1 + 1 > 2” in red marker, illustrating the concept that combined elements can produce a greater effect than their individual contributions.

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed a simple patent lesson: mixing known compounds will not do unless the mix delivers something unexpectedly better. In Crystal Crop, the claimed herbicidal composition failed that test.

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.

Can a Pre-Grant Opposition Survive After Patent Grant?

Text graphic with the phrase “Almost There!” in playful, rounded white font outlined in red, centered on a dark blue background.

The Delhi High Court confirmed that once a patent grant order is signed, a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) is no longer valid. This case involving Vertex Pharmaceuticals affirms that the signature date is definitive, regardless of later administrative delays.

Patent Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition are independent processes

The Delhi High Court has confirmed that patent examination and pre-grant opposition are independent processes under Indian law. Pre-grant opponents are entitled to participate only on specific grounds of opposition, not throughout the examination. This distinction ensures a balanced, efficient, and legally compliant patent process.

You Shouldn’t have filed a Post-Grant Opposition, says Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court in Safex Chemical India Ltd vs The Controller Of Patents clarified procedures for patent oppositions. The Court dismissed Safex’s writ, emphasising adherence to the statutory process under Indian patent law.

Delhi High Court asks the Patent Office to decide on amendments and give adequate opportunity in Opposition Proceedings

The Delhi High Court has provided clear procedural guidance for patent opposition proceedings, focusing on transparency and fair opportunity for all parties. The judgment underscores the importance of timely decisions on claim amendments and systematic handling of pre-grant oppositions by the Indian Patent Office.

High Court remands Patent Office’s Legally Infirm and Unreasoned Order

The Delhi High Court remanded a Patent Office order in a patent grant case for being legally infirm and unreasoned. The judgment underscores the importance of detailed reasoning and adherence to the principles of natural justice in patent proceedings.