Delhi High Court stated that non-consideration of grounds in rejecting pre-grant opposition constitutes violation of principles of natural justice in case of Best Agro Life Limited v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Anr. The statement was made by Justice Jyoti Singh and a single judge bench in reference to Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which states that a discovery of a new form of a known substance that does not improve upon its known efficacy, a discovery of any new property or use for a known substance, or a discovery of the mere use of a known process, machine, or apparatus does not constitute an invention, unless such known process re-invents a known process.
The Respondent submitted a patent application for "A synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron" that was published under Section 11A of the Patents Act, to sum up the case's circumstances. The Respondent's claims were challenged by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs in a First Examination Report for lacking novelty, inventive step, etc. The Respondent submitted a reply and afterwards changed the claims. Later, the petitioner filed a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) of the Act, objecting to the scope of the modified claims and raising issues with the lack of novelty under Section 25(1)(b) and non-patentability under Section 25(1)(f) read with Section 3(d) and 3(e) of the Act. Six additional parties filed pre-grant oppositions to the patent application in addition to the petitioner.
The respondent made several changes to the claims, but the petitioner was not provided any warning or a chance to comment on the proposed changes. The pre-grant opposition of the Petitioner was rejected by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, who also approved the issuance of the Respondent's patent. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition in an effort to overturn the aforementioned ruling.
The court's initial concern was whether the petition could still be maintained. The Respondents objected on the grounds that the Petitioner had a different remedy available in the form of a post-grant opposition under Section 25(2) of the Act and a revocation petition under Section 64. The court ruled that the petitioner cannot be disqualified from the current petition if they can support their claims that the Deputy Controller violated the norms of natural justice, failed to exercise a power granted to them, or neglected to consider important grounds or documents. To this the court noted that "As a matter of self-imposed restraint, the High Court could refrain from exercising the writ jurisdiction, where the aggrieved party has an alternative efficacious remedy. Alternate remedy would not, however, operate as a bar in three eventualities carried out by the Supreme Court. It is a matter of prudence and discretion as to whether the writ Court would entertain the writ petition in the given facts and circumstances...Thus, if the Petitioner is able to substantiate its pleas, there would be a violation of principles of natural justice and in those circumstances, the present writ petition would be maintainable."
The court then looked at the petitioner's argument that the respondent had requested to change the claim two days before the impugned order was issued, and that the amendment had been approved without the petitioner's knowledge or a chance to object. In this case, the respondents said that the first amendment was only a typographical error that removed a few repetitions of words in the claim, while the second modification only added the precise range of thickener to make it inside the parameters of the specifications. Because the nature of the alterations was so minor, the petitioner's objection was legally insupportable. In terms of the first amendment, this Court found merit in the Respondents' argument that the change sought to be made was merely a typo. The court, however, rejected the respondents' plea with regard to the second amendment.
In order to pass a reasoned and speaking order within 8 weeks, the court ordered the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs to revisit the problems.