{"id":15400,"date":"2026-02-09T06:04:28","date_gmt":"2026-02-09T06:04:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=15400"},"modified":"2026-02-09T06:11:23","modified_gmt":"2026-02-09T06:11:23","slug":"procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/","title":{"rendered":"Procedural Separation in Patent Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In this significant decision, the High Court at Calcutta, Intellectual Property Rights Division, has underscored the imperative of maintaining distinct procedural pathways for the examination of patent applications under Sections 14 and 15 of the Patents Act, 1970, and the adjudication of pre-grant oppositions under Section 25(1) of the same Act.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_83 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#Key_Factual_Dates\" >Key Factual Dates<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#Reasoning_And_Decision_Of_Court\" >Reasoning And Decision Of Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#Need_For_Separate_Hearings\" >Need For Separate Hearings<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#Procedural_Prejudice_And_Fairness\" >Procedural Prejudice And Fairness<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#Defects_In_The_Composite_Order\" >Defects In The Composite Order<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#Reliance_On_Precedents\" >Reliance On Precedents<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#Final_Directions_Of_The_Court\" >Final Directions Of The Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#Point_Of_Law_Settled_In_The_Case\" >Point Of Law Settled In The Case<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#1_Separation_Of_Proceedings\" >1. Separation Of Proceedings<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#2_Limits_On_Consolidation\" >2. Limits On Consolidation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#3_Requirement_Of_Clear_Reasoning\" >3. Requirement Of Clear Reasoning<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#4_Duty_Of_The_Controller\" >4. Duty Of The Controller<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#5_Role_Of_Pre-Grant_Opponents\" >5. Role Of Pre-Grant Opponents<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#6_Natural_Justice_And_Remand\" >6. Natural Justice And Remand<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The case of UPL Limited versus Haryana Pesticides Manufacturers Association &amp; Anr. highlights the consequences of procedural consolidation where separate hearings and reasoned orders are mandated by the statutory framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgment remands a rejected patent application for fresh consideration, emphasizing adherence to principles of natural justice and the independent character of examination and opposition proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This ruling aligns with recent judicial trends that seek to prevent the conflation of these distinct stages while ensuring that the Controller of Patents exercises independent scrutiny untainted by mechanical adoption of third-party submissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"factual-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The dispute centers on a patent application filed by UPL Limited on 26 March 2018, bearing number 201831011137, titled \u201cHerbicidal Combinations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The claimed invention pertains to synergistic herbicidal compositions combining active ingredients from three distinct classes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>a triazolone herbicide,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>a Photosystem II inhibitor herbicide, and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>either an ALS inhibitor herbicide from the imidazolinone family or a bleacher herbicide.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The applicant asserted that these combinations exhibited unexpected synergistic efficacy in controlling undesirable weeds, an advantage not achievable when the individual components were applied alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The application was published on 27 September 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Following examination, the Patent Office issued a First Examination Report (FER) on 24 January 2020, raising objections primarily on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In response, the applicant amended the claims by deleting the compound amicarbazone and submitted data purporting to demonstrate synergistic effects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Subsequently, the Haryana Pesticides Manufacturers Association filed a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) on 30 September 2020, contesting the application on multiple grounds including lack of novelty, obviousness, and the invention constituting a mere admixture falling within the prohibition under Section 3(e) of the Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">After a combined hearing on 7 April 2022 and written submissions, the Controller passed an order dated 27 April 2023 rejecting the application, relying inter alia on prior art documents introduced during the opposition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-factual-dates\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Factual_Dates\"><\/span>Key Factual Dates<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Event<\/th><th>Date<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Patent application filed by UPL Limited<\/td><td>26 March 2018<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Publication of patent application<\/td><td>27 September 2019<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>First Examination Report issued<\/td><td>24 January 2020<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Pre-grant opposition filed under Section 25(1)<\/td><td>30 September 2020<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Combined hearing conducted<\/td><td>7 April 2022<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Order rejecting the application<\/td><td>27 April 2023<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"procedural-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The procedural timeline reveals a sequence that ultimately became the focal point of challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">After publication, the FER cited six prior art documents that mirrored those identified in the International Search Report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The applicant responded on 22 July 2020, expressly requesting a hearing under Section 14 should the Controller remain dissatisfied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">No separate hearing was afforded at the examination stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The pre-grant opposition introduced additional prior art documents (D3 to D5) beyond those common with the FER (D1 and D2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A single hearing addressed both the outstanding examination objections and the opposition grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Controller thereafter issued a composite order rejecting the application without delineating which portions addressed examination objections under Section 15 and which disposed of the opposition under Section 25(1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Aggrieved, UPL Limited preferred an appeal under Section 117A of the Act, contending that the consolidation violated statutory mandates and principles of natural justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The private opponent and the Controller defended the procedure, asserting that consolidation was permissible and that the order was adequately reasoned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reasoning-and-decision-of-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_And_Decision_Of_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning And Decision Of Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court examined the statutory architecture of the Patents Act and Rules, concluding that examination proceedings under Sections 14\u201315 and pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) constitute distinct and independent stages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court observed that Rule 55(5) permits simultaneous decision of the application and representation but does not authorize merger of hearings or obliteration of procedural separation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"need-for-separate-hearings\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Need_For_Separate_Hearings\"><\/span>Need For Separate Hearings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Where objections in the FER differ from those in the opposition, separate hearings are obligatory.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Where new prior art emerges only at the opposition stage, the applicant must be given a meaningful opportunity to respond.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court found that the applicant had expressly sought a hearing in response to the FER, a request that went unheeded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"procedural-prejudice-and-fairness\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Prejudice_And_Fairness\"><\/span>Procedural Prejudice And Fairness<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The inability to locate one cited prior art document (D4).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The absence of any response from the Controller.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">These factors compounded the prejudice suffered by the applicant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"defects-in-the-composite-order\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Defects_In_The_Composite_Order\"><\/span>Defects In The Composite Order<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The composite order was held vitiated by its failure to distinguish between examination and opposition findings, rendering it impossible to discern independent application of mind by the Controller.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court noted with concern the Controller\u2019s near-verbatim reproduction of the opponent\u2019s submissions, concluding that such mechanical adoption evidenced absence of reasoned scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reliance-on-precedents\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reliance_On_Precedents\"><\/span>Reliance On Precedents<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Drawing upon precedents including <em>Gilead Pharmasset LLC v. Union of India (2015 SCC OnLine Del 7014)<\/em> and the recent Division Bench ruling in <em>Novartis AG v. Natco Pharma Limited (2024 SCC OnLine Del 152)<\/em>, the court reaffirmed that pre-grant opposition serves an assistive rather than adversarial role.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Opponents possess no locus to participate in pure examination proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"final-directions-of-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Directions_Of_The_Court\"><\/span>Final Directions Of The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The appeal was allowed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The impugned order was set aside.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The application was remanded to a different Controller for fresh consideration.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Directions were issued to afford separate hearings.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A speaking order was to be passed within twelve weeks.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"point-of-law-settled\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_Of_Law_Settled_In_The_Case\"><\/span>Point Of Law Settled In The Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgment crystallizes several critical propositions in Indian patent jurisprudence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"separation-of-proceedings\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_Separation_Of_Proceedings\"><\/span>1. Separation Of Proceedings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Examination under Sections 14\u201315 and pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) are separate and independent proceedings that must ordinarily be heard and decided distinctly, particularly when objections or prior art differ between stages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"limits-on-consolidation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_Limits_On_Consolidation\"><\/span>2. Limits On Consolidation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Consolidation, while permissible in appropriate cases for simultaneous disposal, cannot extinguish the applicant\u2019s statutory right to separate hearings where prejudice is demonstrated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"requirement-of-clear-reasoning\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_Requirement_Of_Clear_Reasoning\"><\/span>3. Requirement Of Clear Reasoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A composite order addressing both streams must clearly demarcate portions relating to examination and opposition respectively, failing which it stands vitiated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"duty-of-the-controller\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"4_Duty_Of_The_Controller\"><\/span>4. Duty Of The Controller<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Controller is obliged to apply independent mind and furnish reasons, and mechanical adoption of an opponent\u2019s submissions constitutes abdication of quasi-judicial function.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"role-of-pre-grant-opponents\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"5_Role_Of_Pre-Grant_Opponents\"><\/span>5. Role Of Pre-Grant Opponents<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Pre-grant opponents enjoy no right of audience or participation in the examination process, their role being confined to aiding the Controller through representation on specified grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"natural-justice-and-remand\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"6_Natural_Justice_And_Remand\"><\/span>6. Natural Justice And Remand<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Violation of these procedural safeguards amounts to breach of natural justice warranting remand, even mindful of the general reluctance to remit matters to expert tribunals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision thus reinforces the structural separation articulated in Novartis and allied rulings, ensuring that the expeditious yet rigorous framework envisaged by the legislature remains intact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Case Title<\/th><td>UPL Limited Vs Haryana Pesticides Manufacturers Association &amp; Anr.<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Date Of Order<\/th><td>05.02.2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Case Number<\/th><td>IPDPTA No.116 of 2023<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name Of Court<\/th><td>High Court At Calcutta, Intellectual Property Rights Division<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name Of Hon\u2019ble Judge<\/th><td>Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Disclaimer:<\/strong>&nbsp;Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Written By:&nbsp;Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/strong>, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Patents Act, 1970 \u2014 Sections 14, 15, 25(1) and Rule 55(5) \u2014 Examination and pre-grant opposition \u2014 Distinct and independent proceedings \u2014 Requirement of separate hearings where objections or prior art differ \u2014 Composite order must demarcate examination and opposition findings \u2014 Mechanical adoption of opponent\u2019s submissions vitiates order \u2014 Violation of natural justice warrants remand to different Controller for fresh consideration \u2014 Appeal allowed.<\/p>\n<p>Held: Where FER objections and opposition grounds are not identical and new prior art is introduced in opposition, separate hearings under Sections 14 and 25(1) are mandatory. Controller must independently apply mind and provide reasons. Pre-grant opponent has no locus in examination proceedings. Matter remanded for de novo consideration with liberty to all parties on merits<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[28],"class_list":["post-15400","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-intellectual-property","tag-top-news"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.6.1 (Yoast SEO v27.6) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Procedural Separation in Patent Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Calcutta High Court rules patent examination and pre-grant opposition must follow separate hearings, reinforcing natural justice and procedural fairness.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Procedural Separation in Patent Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Calcutta High Court rules patent examination and pre-grant opposition must follow separate hearings, reinforcing natural justice and procedural fairness.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-02-09T06:04:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-02-09T06:11:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Capture-2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"930\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"602\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Procedural Separation in Patent Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-09T06:04:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-09T06:11:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1154,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Top News\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Intellectual Property\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\\\/\",\"name\":\"Procedural Separation in Patent Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-09T06:04:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-09T06:11:23+00:00\",\"description\":\"Calcutta High Court rules patent examination and pre-grant opposition must follow separate hearings, reinforcing natural justice and procedural fairness.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Intellectual Property > Procedural Separation in Patent Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\",\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\"},\"description\":\"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/ajayamitabhsuman\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Procedural Separation in Patent Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"Calcutta High Court rules patent examination and pre-grant opposition must follow separate hearings, reinforcing natural justice and procedural fairness.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Procedural Separation in Patent Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition","og_description":"Calcutta High Court rules patent examination and pre-grant opposition must follow separate hearings, reinforcing natural justice and procedural fairness.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-02-09T06:04:28+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-02-09T06:11:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":930,"height":602,"url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Capture-2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Procedural Separation in Patent Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition","datePublished":"2026-02-09T06:04:28+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-09T06:11:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/"},"wordCount":1154,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"keywords":["Top News"],"articleSection":["Intellectual Property"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/","name":"Procedural Separation in Patent Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-02-09T06:04:28+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-09T06:11:23+00:00","description":"Calcutta High Court rules patent examination and pre-grant opposition must follow separate hearings, reinforcing natural justice and procedural fairness.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/procedural-separation-in-patent-examination-and-pre-grant-opposition\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Intellectual Property > Procedural Separation in Patent Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305","name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN"},"description":"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/ajayamitabhsuman\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15400","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15400"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15400\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15400"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15400"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15400"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}