**Very brief and compact summary**
Provivi, Inc. filed Indian National Phase patent application no. 201817018490 (derived from PCT/US2016/062852) for a micro-organism producing insect pheromones and related compounds. After FER issuance on 20.05.2022 and reply filed on 19.07.2022, a hearing notice dated 03.05.2023 was allegedly issued but not received by the petitioner or its agent; no one appeared at the scheduled hearing on 19.05.2023. The Assistant Controller passed a non-speaking refusal order on 30.05.2023 under Section 15 mainly on lack of inventive step citing D3–D5, without discussing petitioner’s reply or analyzing how prior art renders the invention obvious. Petitioner became aware of refusal only later in July 2023, repeatedly followed up, and was informed in October 2024 that e-mails were delivered per office records. The High Court set aside the impugned order finding violation of natural justice (non-receipt of hearing notice and no fresh opportunity given) and lack of reasoned/speaking order (failure to consider reply to FER, absence of proper inventive step analysis per three-element test), and remanded the matter for de novo consideration by the Controller after issuing fresh hearing notice to a confirmed e-mail/address.
**Crisp bullet points of law settled in the case**
- Passing a reasoned and speaking order is an integral part of the principle of audi alteram partem; the Controller must grant an opportunity of being heard and record reasons after considering the applicant’s reply/submissions on merits before refusing a patent application.
(Ref: Paras 8, 9, 11, 15; relying on Assistant Commissioner v. Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785)
- While rejecting a patent application for lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), the Controller must mandatorily consider and discuss three elements: (i) the invention disclosed in the prior art, (ii) the invention disclosed in the application under consideration, and (iii) the manner in which the subject invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art; a bare conclusion without such analysis is impermissible.
(Ref: Paras 12–13, 15; relying on Agriboard International LLC vs Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 940, paras 24–26)
- Even if office records show successful delivery of hearing notice, principles of natural justice require that the applicant be afforded at least one effective opportunity of hearing before refusal, particularly when non-appearance is disputed and no reasoned consideration of reply to FER is given.
(Ref: Paras 14–17)
**Case Details**
**Case Title**: Provivi, Inc. Vs The Controller of Patents and Designs
**Order Date**: 30 January 2026
**Case Number**: W.P.(C)-IPD 43/2025 & CM 192/2025 & CM 193/2025
**Neutral Citation**: (Not assigned / Not indicated in the order)
**Name of Court**: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
**Name of Judge**: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
**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
