In Orion Engineered Carbons IP GmbH and Co. KG v. The Patent Office, Delhi & Anr., (judgment dated 16 October 2026), the Delhi High Court considered whether an inadvertent error in filing a post-grant opposition in the wrong form, resulting in a shortfall in the prescribed fee, could be corrected under Rule 137 of the Patents Rules, 2003.<\/p>\n
Orion filed a post-grant opposition against Indian Patent No. 470059. However, instead of filing the opposition in Form 7, as required under Rule 55A of the Patents Rules, 2003, Orion inadvertently uploaded it in Form 30. As a result, it paid a fee of Rs. 12,000 instead of the prescribed fee of Rs. 40,000.<\/p>\n
After discovering the error, Orion filed a petition under Rule 137, seeking permission to correct the form. Orion also expressed its willingness to pay the deficient fee of Rs. 28,000 once the correction was permitted. As the Patent Office had not disposed of the correction petition, Orion approached the Delhi High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions for its disposal.<\/p>\n
Whether the Controller could permit such a correction where the opposition itself had been filed within the one-year period prescribed under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act, 1970.<\/p>\n
Orion submitted that the post-grant opposition had been filed within the one-year period prescribed under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act. Orion contended that the mistake was inadvertent and purely clerical, and that the incorrect form and the resulting fee deficiency were procedural irregularities that could be corrected under Rule 137.<\/p>\n
The Patent Office asserted that the Controller had no power to condone the delay in filing a post-grant opposition. The Patent Office relied on Section 25(2), which sets the time limit for filing an opposition, Section 142(3), which deals with payment of fees, and on Section 2(1)(v), which treats payment of the prescribed fee as part of the \u201cprescribed manner.\u201d The Patent Office argued that the opposition had not been duly filed because it was not submitted in the prescribed form with the required fee and therefore maintained that Rule 137 could not be used to cure the defect.<\/p>\n
The Court examined Rule 137, which permits the Controller to correct procedural irregularities where no specific provision for amendment exists, provided that the correction can be made without detriment to the interests of any person.<\/p>\n
The Court observed that Rule 137 is a residuary provision intended to address procedural irregularities of this nature. The parties also agreed that there was no specific provision dealing with the correction of a post-grant opposition filed in the wrong form. The Court therefore considered Rule 137 applicable.<\/p>\n
The Court also distinguished between a delay in filing the opposition and an error in the form used to file it. It noted that Orion had filed its opposition within the one-year period prescribed under Section 25(2). The defect was limited to the use of Form 30 instead of Form 7, which had also resulted in the payment of a lower fee.<\/p>\n
The Court opined that both the incorrect form and the resulting fee deficiency were procedural irregularities that could be rectified under Rule 137. It further observed that procedural rules should not be interpreted in a way that defeats the purpose of the statute or obstructs the administration of justice, unless the procedural violation itself results in grave injustice. Since the opposition had been filed within the statutory period and the proposed correction would not prejudice the patentee or any other person, the Court found no reason to deny the correction.<\/p>\n
The Court allowed Orion\u2019s petition and:<\/p>\n
Article review by Dr. Neetha Mohan<\/p>\n
Citation: CNR No. DLHC010451872026 + W.P.(C)-IPD 42\/2026, CM 242\/2026 & CM 243\/2026<\/p>\n