The case primarily revolved around the interpretation of provisions under the Patents Act, 1970, particularly the timing of the grant of a patent and its implications for pre-grant opposition. The dispute arose when Dr. Snehlata C. Gupte filed a pre-grant opposition after an order granting a patent was passed but before the issuance of the patent certificate. The central issue was determining when a patent is deemed granted.

Background:
The dispute stemmed from two patent applications filed by J. Mitra & Co. Ltd. in 2001. These applications were published in the Official Gazette in 2004 for pre-grant oppositions under Section 25 of the Patents Act. One Span Diagnostics Ltd. (SDL) filed pre-grant opposition. It was considered by the Controller and vide detailed order dated 23.8.2006, the Controller rejected this opposition.

Dr. Snehlata C. Gupte, challenged the grant of patents by filing pre-grant opposition on 24.08.2006. This was rejected being time barred on the Ground that Patent was already graned on 23.08.2006. The appellant, Dr. Snehlata C. Gupte, challenged the grant of patents, arguing that her pre-grant opposition was filed within the permissible time frame under the amended provisions of the Act.
 

• Brief Facts of the Case:
• Patent Applications: J. Mitra & Co. Ltd. filed two patent applications on June 14, 2001. These were published on November 20, 2004, under Section 11A of the Patents Act, inviting pre-grant oppositions.
• Initial Opposition: Span Diagnostics Ltd. filed a pre-grant opposition, which was rejected by the Controller on August 23, 2006. The Controller simultaneously passed an order granting the patent.
• Appellant’s Opposition: Dr. Gupte sent her pre-grant opposition on August 22, 2006, which was received by the Patent Office on August 24, 2006, after the order granting the patent.
• Controller’s Rejection: The Controller rejected Dr. Gupte’s opposition, stating it was time-barred as the patent was already granted.
• Legal Challenge: Dr. Gupte challenged the rejection before the Delhi High Court, raising the question of when a patent is deemed granted.
   
• Issues Involved:
  • When is a patent deemed granted under the Patents Act, 1970?
  • Whether the appellant's pre-grant opposition was filed within the permissible time frame?
  • The legal implications of issuing a patent certificate versus the Controller’s order of grant.
     
• Submissions of the Parties:
  • Appellant (Dr. Snehlata C. Gupte):
    • Argued that the patent is not granted until it is sealed and entered into the Register under Section 43(1) of the Patents Act.
    • Asserted that her opposition was valid as it was filed before the sealing and entry of the patent.
    • Contended that the Controller’s order dated August 23, 2006, was conditional, requiring compliance with formalities before the patent could be deemed granted.
       
  • Respondent No. 5 (J. Mitra & Co. Ltd.):
    • Claimed that the patent was granted on August 23, 2006, when the Controller rejected the opposition and passed the order of grant.
    • Argued that the issuance of the patent certificate is a ministerial act and does not affect the date of grant.
    • Highlighted the misuse of the opposition mechanism by the appellant, allegedly acting at the behest of a business rival, Span Diagnostics Ltd.
       
• Reasoning and Analysis by the Court:
  • Nature of the Controller’s Order: The Court held that the Controller’s order dated August 23, 2006, granting the patent, was not conditional. The requirement to amend certain formalities was a routine procedure that did not delay the grant.
  • Timing of Grant: The Court clarified that the grant of a patent occurs when the Controller passes an order of grant, not when the patent certificate is issued. Issuance of the certificate and entry into the Register are administrative acts that confirm the grant but do not determine its date.
  • Pre-Grant Opposition: The Court emphasized that pre-grant opposition must be filed before the date of grant. Since the patent was granted on August 23, 2006, the appellant’s opposition filed on August 24, 2006, was time-barred.
  • Misuse of Opposition Mechanism: The Court noted that allowing multiple oppositions after the grant order could lead to endless delays, defeating the purpose of the Patents Act. It observed a potential nexus between the appellant and Span Diagnostics Ltd., indicating an ulterior motive.

Decision:
The Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Controller’s order and the Single Judge’s decision. It ruled that the patent was granted on August 23, 2006, and the appellant’s opposition was not maintainable. Costs of ₹25,000 were imposed on each appellant.

Conclusion:
This case clarified the legal position on the timing of patent grants under the Patents Act, 1970. It established that the date of the Controller’s order is the date of grant, not the issuance of the certificate. The judgment also highlighted the need to prevent misuse of opposition mechanisms to delay patent grants.

Case Title: Dr. Snehlata C. Gupte Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Order: April 20, 2012
Case Number: LPA Nos. 561/2010, 562/2010, 563/2010 & 564/2010
Neutral Citation: AIR 2012 DELHI 182, (2012) 189 DLT 342
Name of the Court:High Court of Delhi, New Delhi
Bench: Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice A.K. Sikri,Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539