In Best Agrolife Limited v. Deputy Controller of Patents & Anr., the High Court of Delhi on 7 July 2022 in W.P.(C)-IPD 11/2022, delivered a judgment by Justice Jyoti Singh allowing the writ petition filed by Best Agrolife Limited. The Court set aside the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents granting Patent No. IN 394568 to GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. for a synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron, after dismissing the pre-grant opposition.
The Petitioner challenged the grant on grounds including lack of novelty, inventive step, and non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act. The Court held that the impugned order was non-speaking and suffered from serious violation of principles of natural justice as the Deputy Controller failed to consider the Petitioner’s substantive objections, particularly under Section 3(d), relevant prior art documents, and allowed claim amendments without notice to the opponent. While noting the availability of post-grant remedies, the Court exercised writ jurisdiction due to manifest procedural irregularities. The matter was remanded to the Controller for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors. Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
#DelhiHighCourt, #PatentOpposition, #Section3dPatentsAct, #PreGrantOpposition, #AgrochemicalPatent, #NaturalJustice, #WritPetitionIPD, #JusticeJyotiSingh, #PatentRemand, #IPLitigation, #IPUpdate, #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, #IPAdjutor
===
Introduction
In a notable judgment concerning patent opposition proceedings in the agrochemical sector, the Delhi High Court has underscored the importance of reasoned orders by the Patent Office and strict adherence to principles of natural justice while deciding pre-grant oppositions. The ruling highlights that even at the pre-grant stage, the Controller must address all substantial grounds raised by the opponent, particularly objections under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, which acts as a crucial filter against evergreening of patents.
Factual and Procedural Background
GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 2) filed patent application No. 284/MUM/2014 on 27 January 2014 for a synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. The application was published on 11 September 2015. After examination and amendments, Best Agrolife Limited (Petitioner) filed a pre-grant opposition on 4 March 2021 under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, raising multiple grounds including lack of novelty, inventive step, and non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(e). Several other parties also filed oppositions.
The Deputy Controller of Patents heard the matter and passed an order on 8 April 2022 granting the patent (IN 394568) while dismissing the oppositions. Aggrieved by this, Best Agrolife filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the order primarily on grounds of non-application of mind, violation of natural justice, and failure to consider key objections.
Dispute
The core dispute centred on whether the Controller’s order granting the patent was sustainable when it allegedly failed to address the Petitioner’s opposition under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, did not properly evaluate prior art documents, and allowed claim amendments without notice to the opponent. The Petitioner also questioned the maintainability of the writ petition, given the availability of post-grant remedies.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Jyoti Singh delivered the judgment on 7 July 2022. The Court first examined the maintainability of the writ petition. While acknowledging alternative remedies like post-grant opposition under Section 25(2) or revocation under Section 64, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 1, and Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771. It held that writ jurisdiction can be invoked where there is violation of principles of natural justice or manifest error, and relegating the Petitioner to statutory remedies would cause injustice.
On merits, the Court found the impugned order suffered from serious infirmities. The Petitioner had specifically raised objections under Section 3(d), arguing that the claimed suspo-emulsion was a new form of a known combination that did not demonstrate enhanced efficacy. However, the Controller’s order did not even mention Section 3(d). The Judge referred to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Novartis AG v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 1, explaining that Section 3(d) sets a higher threshold to prevent evergreening by requiring enhanced efficacy for new forms of known substances. The Court clarified that Section 3(d) (enhanced efficacy) and Section 3(e) (synergistic effect in admixtures) operate in different fields and both needed independent consideration.
The order was described as non-speaking and unreasoned on vital grounds. The Court also noted failure to consider several prior art documents and allowing amendments to claims just two days before the order without giving the Petitioner an opportunity to respond, violating natural justice. Reliance was placed on Agriboard International LLC v. Deputy Controller of Patents, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 940, and Gilead Pharmasset, LLC v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7014, to stress the need for reasoned decisions.
Final Decision of the Court
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 8 April 2022 granting the patent, and remanded the matter back to the Deputy Controller for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to all parties.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
The judgment reinforces that pre-grant oppositions must be decided through speaking orders addressing all substantial grounds raised, particularly under Section 3(d). Non-consideration of key statutory objections or violation of natural justice (such as deciding amendments without notice) renders the order unsustainable, justifying interference under Article 226 despite alternative remedies. It reiterates the distinct roles of Sections 3(d) and 3(e) and the binding principles from Novartis on preventing evergreening in chemical/agrochemical patents.
Case Detail Title: Best Agrolife Limited Vs Deputy Controller of Patents & Anr. Date of Order: 7th July, 2022 Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 11/2022 & CM APPL. 32/2022, 54/2022, 55/2022 Neutral Citation: 2022:DHC:XXXX (as per available records) Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh
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
Suitable SEO Titles for Legal Journal: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Patent Grant Order for Non-Consideration of Section 3(d) in Pre-Grant Opposition, Best Agrolife Vs Deputy Controller of Patents Judgment on Natural Justice in Patent Matters, Justice Jyoti Singh Remands Agrochemical Patent Case Emphasising Enhanced Efficacy Test, Delhi High Court Reiterates Novartis Principles in Section 3(d) Agrochemical Dispute
SEO Tags: Delhi High Court, Pre Grant Opposition, Section 3(d) Patents Act, Section 3(e) Patents, Patent Evergreening, Natural Justice Patent Office, Jyoti Singh J, Agrochemical Patent, IN 394568, Best Agrolife Limited
AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Headnote: Delhi High Court allows writ petition by Best Agrolife Limited, quashes order granting patent IN 394568 to GSP Crop Science, holding that non-consideration of Section 3(d) objection, failure to address prior art, and allowing amendments without notice violated principles of natural justice. Matter remanded for fresh decision. Court clarifies distinct application of Sections 3(d) and 3(e) following Novartis principles.
===
