UPL Limited Vs Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association

The Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling delivered by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, has set aside the rejection of a patent application for a herbicidal composition filed by UPL Limited. The court found serious procedural irregularities in the manner in which the Controller of Patents handled the pre-grant opposition and the examination process concurrently, without affording separate hearings as contemplated under the Patents Act, 1970. The matter has been remanded for fresh consideration by a different Controller, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory separation between examination proceedings and pre-grant opposition proceedings, along with strict compliance with principles of natural justice.

**Introduction**  

This judgment addresses a critical aspect of Indian patent prosecution involving the interplay between the examination of patent applications under Sections 14 and 15 of the Patents Act, 1970, and pre-grant oppositions filed under Section 25(1). The court examined whether these distinct statutory stages can be merged into a single composite order without separate hearings, particularly when new prior art documents are introduced during opposition that were not part of the First Examination Report (FER). The decision reinforces the independent nature of these proceedings, the mandatory requirement of reasoned orders with independent application of mind, and the limited participatory role of pre-grant opponents in the examination stage. It draws heavily on precedents emphasizing procedural fairness in quasi-judicial patent decisions and highlights that procedural lapses vitiating natural justice warrant remand, even in technical matters.

**Factual Background**  

UPL Limited filed Patent Application No. 201831011137 on March 26, 2018, claiming a herbicidal combination for controlling undesirable plants (weeds). The invention involved a synergistic composition comprising a Triazolone herbicide, a Photosystem II inhibitor herbicide, and either an ALS inhibitor (from Imidazolinone class) or a bleacher herbicide. The applicant asserted that the combination exhibited unexpected synergistic weed control, superior to individual components. The application was published on September 27, 2019. A First Examination Report was issued on January 24, 2020, raising objections including lack of novelty, inventive step, and sufficiency. In response, filed on July 22, 2020, the applicant amended Claim 1 by deleting the compound amicarbazone to overcome novelty objections and requested a hearing under Section 14. A pre-grant opposition was filed by Haryana Pesticides Manufacturers Association (respondent no.1) on September 30, 2020, under Section 25(1), alleging lack of novelty (Section 25(1)(b)), lack of inventive step (Section 25(1)(e)), and the invention being a mere admixture not qualifying as an invention under Section 3(e). The opposition introduced additional prior arts (D3 to D5) not cited in the FER. Hearings and written submissions followed, culminating in a composite impugned order dated April 27, 2023, rejecting the application.

**Procedural Background**  

The applicant challenged the impugned order before the Calcutta High Court in IPDPTA No.116 of 2023. The primary grievance centered on procedural violations: no separate hearing was granted under Section 14 despite the explicit request in the FER reply; the Controller passed a single composite order disposing of both examination and opposition proceedings without delineating portions attributable to each; new prior arts introduced in opposition were considered without adequate opportunity to respond; the impugned order mechanically reproduced the opponent's submissions without independent reasoning or analysis of the applicant's data and arguments; and one cited prior art (D4) was untraceable and not provided despite requests. The Controller defended the consolidation as permissible, while the opponent supported the rejection on substantive grounds including lack of synergy proof and admixture nature.

**Reasoning and Decision of Court**  

The court held that examination under Sections 14-15 and pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) constitute distinct, independent stages under the statutory scheme. The opponent has no right of audience or participation in the examination proceeding, which remains confined between the applicant and the Controller. Reliance was placed on Novartis AG vs Natco Pharma Limited (2024 SCC OnLine Del 152), which clarified that opposition aids but does not supplant or merge with independent examination; the opponent's hearing right under Rule 55(5) is limited to the representation grounds. The court found a serious procedural infirmity in the composite order without separate hearings, especially since objections and prior arts differed between FER and opposition. This denied natural justice, as the applicant could not adequately address new citations. The impugned order lacked reasons, mechanically adopted opponent's views without dealing with applicant's submissions, data, or case laws, violating the principle that reasons form the soul of quasi-judicial orders (S.N. Mukherjee vs Union of India). The court distinguished cases cited by the opponent on sufficiency, noting such grounds were not the basis of rejection and the opponent lacked locus in appeal on waived FER objections. Finding violation of natural justice and procedural impropriety going to the root, the court remanded the matter to a different Controller for fresh consideration after adequate hearings and consideration of all materials, without expressing views on merits. The remand was directed within twelve weeks from communication of the order.

**Point of Law Settled in the Case**  

The judgment settles that pre-grant opposition and patent application examination are statutorily separate proceedings that cannot be merged into a single composite order without separate hearings under Sections 14 and 25(1) respectively, particularly when new prior arts or distinct objections arise in opposition. The Controller must pass reasoned orders with independent application of mind, and failure to provide requested hearings under Section 14, or to delineate statutory stages in composite orders, constitutes violation of natural justice warranting setting aside and remand. Pre-grant opponents have no participatory right in examination proceedings, and their role is confined to aiding holistic assessment without overriding the Controller's independent duty.

**Case Detail**  

- **Title**: UPL Limited Vs Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association & Anr.  

- **Date of Order**: 05.02.2026  

- **Case Number**: IPDPTA No.116 of 2023  

- **Neutral Citation**: (Not available in public domain records as of current date; may be assigned subsequently by the Calcutta High Court registry)  

- **Name of Court**: High Court at Calcutta (Intellectual Property Rights Division, Original Side)  

- **Name of Hon'ble Judge**: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur  

**Disclaimer**: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation  

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi  

**Suggested Titles for the Article**  

1. Calcutta High Court Remands UPL Herbicidal Patent Rejection: Mandates Separate Hearings for Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition  

2. Procedural Fairness in Patent Prosecution: Calcutta HC Sets Aside Composite Rejection Order for Violating Natural Justice  

3. Separation of Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition Proceedings: Landmark Clarification by Calcutta High Court in UPL Limited Case  

4. Natural Justice Prevails: Calcutta HC Quashes Patent Refusal Due to Merged Proceedings and Lack of Reasons  

**Suggested Tags**  

Patent Law, Pre-Grant Opposition, Section 25(1) Patents Act, Section 14 & 15 Hearing, Natural Justice in Patent Proceedings, Composite Order Invalidity, Remand by Calcutta High Court, Herbicidal Composition Patent, UPL Limited Judgment, Procedural Irregularity in IPO, Inventive Step Rejection, Synergistic Herbicidal Combinations  

**Headnote**  

Calcutta High Court allows appeal against rejection of patent application for herbicidal combinations; sets aside impugned order for procedural infirmity in merging examination and pre-grant opposition without separate hearings, lack of reasoned independent application of mind, and violation of natural justice; matter remanded for fresh consideration by different Controller within 12 weeks, leaving merits open; reinforces statutory distinction between Sections 14-15 and 25(1) proceedings.

==========

**Brief Summary**  

UPL Limited's patent application for a herbicidal combination comprising Triazolone herbicide, Photosystem II inhibitor, and either ALS inhibitor (Imidazolinone) or bleacher herbicide was rejected by the Controller via a composite order dated 27 April 2023 on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and being a mere admixture under Section 3(e) following a pre-grant opposition by Haryana Pesticides Manufacturers Association. The applicant challenged the order before the Calcutta High Court alleging procedural violations including no separate hearing under Section 14 despite request, merger of examination and opposition proceedings into one order without delineation, consideration of new prior arts (D3–D5) introduced only in opposition without adequate opportunity, mechanical adoption of opponent's submissions without independent reasoning or analysis of applicant's data, and lack of reasons. The Court found serious procedural infirmity and violation of natural justice, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to a different Controller for fresh consideration after affording proper hearings and full consideration of materials, without expressing any view on merits, directing completion within twelve weeks.

**Points of Law Settled**  

- Examination proceedings under Sections 14–15 and pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) are distinct, independent stages that cannot be merged into a single composite order without separate hearings, particularly when new prior arts or different objections arise in opposition (Para 8–10, 14).  

- The pre-grant opponent has no right of audience or participation in the examination proceeding, which remains confined between the applicant and the Controller; the opponent's hearing right under Rule 55(5) is limited to the opposition representation (Para 8, 12, relying on Novartis AG v Natco Pharma Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 152).  

- Passing a composite order without delineating portions attributable to Section 14/15 and Section 25(1), and without granting a requested hearing under Section 14, constitutes serious procedural irregularity and violation of natural justice warranting setting aside of the order (Para 10, 14, relying on Gilead Pharmasset LLC v Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7014).  

- Quasi-judicial orders of the Controller must contain independent application of mind and adequate reasons; mechanical reproduction of opponent's submissions without dealing with applicant's evidence, data and arguments vitiates the order (Para 11, relying on S.N. Mukherjee v Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594).  

- In cases of clear violation of natural justice and procedural impropriety in patent matters, remand to the Controller (preferably different officer) for fresh adjudication is appropriate even in technical disputes (Para 14, relying on Klassic Wheels Pvt Ltd v Asst Controller of Patents, 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 3387 and F Hoffmann-La Roche AG v NATCO Pharma Ltd, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6390).

**Case Details**  

- **Case Title**: UPL Limited v Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association & Anr.  

- **Order Date**: 05 February 2026  

- **Case Number**: IPDPTA No. 116 of 2023  

- **Neutral Citation**: Not yet assigned / Not available in public domain  

- **Name of Court**: High Court at Calcutta (Intellectual Property Rights Division, Original Side)  

- **Name of Judge**: Hon’ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur  

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation  

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi  

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor