The judgment in UPL vs Haryana Pesticides (2026), decided on 5 February 2026 by the Calcutta High Court’s Intellectual Property Rights Division, examines a crucial procedural question under the Patents Act, 1970 arising from the rejection of UPL’s patent application for “Herbicidal Combinations” following a pre-grant opposition. The Court set aside the rejection order on grounds of procedural impropriety and violation of natural justice, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. This judgment reinforces the structural separation between patent examination and pre-grant opposition proceedings, clarifies that a requested Section 14 hearing cannot be bypassed for administrative convenience, and firmly reiterates that reasoned, independent decision-making is foundational to patent adjudication in India.
The central issue was whether the Controller of Patents could dispose of examination proceedings under Sections 14 and 15 and pre-grant opposition proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act through a single composite order, without granting separate hearings. The Court had to determine whether such a procedure violated the statutory scheme of the Act and the principles of natural justice.
The judgment clearly demarcates the distinction between examination proceedings and pre-grant opposition proceedings. It reinforces that procedural safeguards under the Patents Act are mandatory and clarifies the limited role of a pre-grant opponent in patent examination. It strengthens the requirement that quasi-judicial patent decisions must be reasoned and speaking orders and it serves as an important precedent for patent prosecution and opposition practice in India.
Facts:
UPL Limited filed a patent application on 26 March 2018 titled “Herbicidal Combinations”. The application was published on 27 September 2019 and First Examination Report was issued on 24 January 2020. Thereafter UPL filed its response to the FER on 22 July 2020 and specifically requested a hearing under Section 14.
Respondent No. 1 filed a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) on 30 September 2020. Additional prior art documents D3 to D5 were introduced in the opposition, which were not part of the FER. A hearing on the pre-grant opposition and a single composite order dated 27 April 2023 rejected the patent application on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and Section 3(e) being a mere admixture.
UPL challenged this rejection before the Calcutta High Court and the issues Before the Court included:
Whether examination proceedings under Sections 14–15 and pre-grant opposition proceedings under Section 25(1) are distinct statutory stages.
Whether the Controller was required to grant separate hearings under Section 14 and Section 25(1).
Whether passing a composite order violated the scheme of the Patents Act.
Whether failure to supply prior art D4 and consideration of new prior arts without adequate opportunity violated natural justice.
Whether the impugned order was a valid speaking order with independent reasoning.
Whether a pre-grant opponent has a right to participate in examination proceedings.
The Court held that Sections 14–15 (examination stage) and Section 25(1) (pre-grant opposition stage) are distinct and independent proceedings under the Patents Act, 1970. The statutory scheme does not contemplate merger of these processes
Since the appellant had expressly requested a hearing under Section 14, the Controller was obligated to grant it. Failure to do so and passing a combined order constituted procedural impropriety. The Court relied upon S.N. Mukherjee vs Union of India, where the Supreme Court held that recording reasons is an essential facet of natural justice in quasi-judicial decisions.The High Court found that the Controller’s order lacked independent reasoning and mechanically adopted the opponent’s submissions. The Court relied heavily on Novartis AG vs Natco Pharma Limited, which clarified that the examination process is an independent statutory duty of the Controller. A pre-grant opponent has a right of hearing only in opposition proceedings. The opponent cannot claim participatory rights in the examination process. The two processes must remain structurally distinct. The Court also referred to Gilead Pharmasset, LLC vs Union of India & Anr., which emphasised that procedural violations affecting natural justice justify setting aside patent decisions.
The Court concluded that the composite order failed to demarcate findings under Sections 15 and 25(1). The applicant was prejudiced by consideration of additional prior art without separate hearing. The matter required fresh adjudication. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order dated 27 April 2023 was set aside. The matter was remanded to a different Controller. Fresh hearing under proper statutory procedure was directed. The Court did not decide patentability on merits.
Impact on other pending pre-grant oppositions includes:
Mandatory Hearing Separation: The ruling establishes that if a patent applicant expressly requests a Section 14 hearing(examination stage), the Controller cannot bypass it by only holding a combined pre-grant opposition hearing. Pending cases where such a request was made but ignored are now highly vulnerable to being set aside on appeal.
Identifiable Findings: Even if a “common order” is passed for administrative ease, it must now clearly demarcate which portions relate to Section 15 (rejection by the Office) and which relate to Section 25(1) (opposition by a third party). Orders that conflate these findings can be challenged as lacking independent reasoning.
Introduction of New Prior Art: The court highlighted that introducing new prior art (like D3 to D5 in this case) during the opposition stage requires a fair rebuttal opportunity for the applicant. Pending oppositions where new evidence was introduced without a chance for the applicant to amend claims or provide separate data are likely to be remanded for fresh consideration.
Share your thoughts on WhatsApp +91-8929203324
Vidhik-Vishleshan (Decoding The Law & More) 