Brief Legal News Write-Up
Saathi, Inc. v. Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 15.06.2026 : Case No.: Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 17 of 2026 : Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:13304 : Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay : Hon'ble Judge: Justice Arif S. Doctor
The Court considered a dispute concerning the validity of an order revoking a patent in post-grant opposition proceedings. The case arose from allegations that the Controller had revoked the petitioner’s patent without providing adequate reasons, without properly considering the Opposition Board’s recommendation, without addressing the issue of locus standi of the opponent, and despite the absence of an affidavit of evidence from the opponent.
The principal question before the Court was whether the impugned order revoking Patent No. IN365526 could be sustained when it allegedly failed to comply with statutory requirements and principles of reasoned decision-making under the Patents Act, 1970 and the Patents Rules, 2003.
After examining the material on record and the submissions of the petitioner, Justice Arif S. Doctor observed that the impugned order was wholly unreasoned, contained no independent analysis of the rival contentions, failed to explain its departure from the Opposition Board’s recommendation, and did not address fundamental issues relating to locus standi and admissible evidence.
The Court held that a Controller deciding a post-grant opposition must pass a reasoned and speaking order, duly consider the recommendations of the Opposition Board, determine whether the opponent qualifies as a “person interested,” and ensure compliance with statutory requirements relating to evidence. The Court emphasized that failure to do so vitiates the decision-making process.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order revoking the patent, and granted relief in terms of the petitioner's prayers. There was no order as to costs.
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not treat this as a substitute for legal advise as it is based on limited information and is intended solely for general informational purposes.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Patent Revocation Order for Lack of Reasons and Failure to Consider Opposition Board Findings
Introduction
The decision of the Bombay High Court in Saathi, Inc. v. Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Anr. is an important judgment concerning post-grant patent opposition proceedings under the Patents Act, 1970. The ruling reinforces the obligation of patent authorities to provide reasoned decisions, properly consider recommendations made by the Opposition Board, and address threshold issues affecting the maintainability of opposition proceedings.
The judgment is particularly relevant for patent holders, innovators, start-ups, technology companies, intellectual property professionals, and patent authorities. It underscores that administrative decisions affecting valuable patent rights must be transparent, reasoned, and consistent with statutory requirements.
The ruling also highlights the importance of procedural fairness and judicial scrutiny of administrative decision-making in intellectual property matters.
Factual and Procedural Background
Saathi, Inc. was granted Patent No. IN365526 after undergoing multiple rounds of examination, scrutiny, and amendment before the Patent Office. Following the grant of the patent, Respondent No. 2 instituted post-grant opposition proceedings under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking revocation of the patent.
An Opposition Board was constituted in accordance with the statutory framework. The Board examined the matter and recommended rejection of the opposition. Despite this recommendation, the Controller passed an order dated 17 July 2025 allowing the opposition and revoking the patent.
The petitioner challenged the revocation order before the Bombay High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act. The petitioner argued that the order was non-speaking, ignored the Opposition Board’s recommendation, failed to examine whether the opponent was a “person interested” under the Act, and overlooked the fact that the opponent had not filed an affidavit of evidence as required by Section 79 of the Act.
The Court therefore examined whether the revocation order could legally survive.
Dispute Before the Court
The dispute before the Court centered on whether the Controller's order revoking the patent was legally sustainable.
The petitioner contended that the impugned order merely reproduced the submissions of the opponent and contained no independent reasoning. It further argued that although the Opposition Board had recommended rejection of the opposition, the Controller failed to provide any explanation for disagreeing with that recommendation.
The petitioner also argued that Respondent No. 2, who claimed to be a medical practitioner, had failed to establish that he qualified as a “person interested” under Section 2(1)(t) and Section 25(2) of the Patents Act. According to the petitioner, this issue affected the very maintainability of the opposition proceedings.
Additionally, the petitioner submitted that Respondent No. 2 had not filed an affidavit of evidence as required by Section 79 of the Patents Act and had merely annexed documents to the opposition.
The Court was therefore required to determine whether these defects rendered the revocation order legally unsustainable.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Court found substantial merit in all the principal objections raised by the petitioner.
The Court first examined the impugned order and concluded that it was a non-speaking order. It observed that the Controller had substantially reproduced the submissions of the opponent and revoked the patent without conducting any independent analysis of the evidence, technical materials, prior art, or rival contentions. The Court emphasized that administrative authorities exercising statutory powers affecting patent rights must provide clear and reasoned findings.
The Court also attached significance to the fact that the dispute arose in post-grant opposition proceedings under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act. Since the patent had already undergone detailed examination before grant, a decision revoking the patent required careful and reasoned consideration of all relevant materials.
While dealing with the Opposition Board’s recommendation, the Court referred to Rule 62(5) of the Patents Rules, 2003. The Court clarified that although the Controller is not bound by the Board’s recommendation, the Controller is statutorily required to consider it. Where the Controller disagrees with the recommendation, reasons must be recorded explaining the basis of disagreement.
The Court relied upon Pharmacyclics, LLC v. Controller General of Patents, 2020 SCC OnLine IPAB 37, which emphasized that recommendations of the Opposition Board cannot be ignored and that the Controller must clearly indicate reasons for agreement or disagreement.
The Court further relied upon decisions including Saurabh Arora v. Deputy Controller of Patents & Anr., Medipack Global Ventures (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, and Dolby International AB v. Controller of Patents & Designs, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1521, which stress the necessity of reasoned orders in patent matters.
On the issue of evidence, the Court found merit in the contention that the opponent had failed to file an affidavit of evidence as required under Section 79 of the Patents Act. The Court observed that merely annexing documents to an opposition does not convert those documents into admissible evidence. The Court accepted the petitioner’s reliance on Akebia Therapeutics Inc. v. Controller General of Patents, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4841.
The Court also examined the issue of locus standi. It observed that Section 25(2) permits post-grant opposition proceedings only by a “person interested” as defined under Section 2(1)(t) of the Act. The petitioner had specifically argued that Respondent No. 2 failed to establish any nexus with the patented invention titled “Absorbent Article Having Natural Fibres.” Despite the importance of this objection, the Controller had completely failed to address it.
The Court held that the issue of whether the opponent is a “person interested” must be decided at the threshold because it goes to the maintainability of the proceedings themselves. In this context, the Court found support in the Supreme Court decision in Aloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra & Ors., (2014) 15 SCC 360.
Final Decision of the Court
The Bombay High Court held that the impugned order suffered from multiple legal infirmities. The order was unreasoned, failed to properly consider the Opposition Board’s recommendation, overlooked statutory requirements relating to evidence, and did not determine the maintainability of the opposition by examining whether the opponent qualified as a “person interested.”
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and granted relief in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The Court made no order as to costs.
Point of Law Settled
The judgment reinforces several important principles governing post-grant patent opposition proceedings.
A Controller deciding a post-grant opposition must pass a reasoned and speaking order supported by independent analysis. The Controller must genuinely consider the recommendations of the Opposition Board and provide reasons whenever those recommendations are not accepted. The maintainability of opposition proceedings depends upon the opponent establishing that it is a “person interested” under the Patents Act. Further, documents annexed without a supporting affidavit cannot automatically be treated as evidence where the statute requires evidence to be filed by affidavit.
The decision strengthens procedural safeguards in patent opposition proceedings and promotes transparency, accountability, and fairness in patent administration.
Case Details:
Title of the Case: Saathi, Inc. Vs. Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Anr.
Date of Judgment/Order: 15.06.2026
Case Number: Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 17 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:13304
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Arif S. Doctor
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement and that the same are for illustrative purpose only. Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Suggested SEO Titles:
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Patent Revocation in Saathi Inc Case
Post-Grant Patent Opposition Order Quashed by Bombay High Court
Patent Controller Must Pass Reasoned Orders: Bombay HC
Saathi Inc Wins Patent Revocation Challenge Before Bombay High Court
Bombay HC on Importance of Opposition Board Recommendations in Patent Cases
Patent Opposition Proceedings and Locus Standi Explained
Non-Speaking Patent Revocation Orders Cannot Survive Judicial Review
Bombay High Court Clarifies Requirements for Post-Grant Patent Opposition
Section 25(2) Patents Act: Key Ruling on Person Interested Requirement
Patent Revocation Set Aside for Failure to Consider Evidence and Locus
Important Intellectual Property Judgment by Bombay High Court in 2026
Patent Law Update: Saathi Inc v Controller General of Patents
Suggested SEO Tags:
Patent Law, Patent Opposition, Post Grant Opposition, Patents Act 1970, Bombay High Court, Saathi Inc, Patent Revocation, Intellectual Property Law, Patent Litigation India, Controller General of Patents, Opposition Board, Rule 62(5) Patents Rules, Section 25(2) Patents Act, Person Interested Patent Law, Patent Evidence, Section 79 Patents Act, Patent Jurisprudence, Speaking Order, Reasoned Order, Akebia Therapeutics Case, Pharmacyclics Case, Aloys Wobben Case, Patent Rights India, Patent Enforcement, Patent Disputes, Innovation Law, Intellectual Property Rights, Patent Appeal, Patent Practice India, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Headnote of the Judgment:
Saathi, Inc. v. Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Anr., Bombay High Court, Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 17 of 2026, decided on 15.06.2026. The petitioner challenged an order revoking Patent No. IN365526 in post-grant opposition proceedings. The Bombay High Court held that the impugned order was a non-speaking order, failed to provide reasons for departing from the Opposition Board’s recommendation, did not address whether the opponent qualified as a “person interested” under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act, and overlooked statutory requirements relating to evidence under Section 79. The Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned revocation order, and granted relief in favour of the patent holder.
Infographic Thumbnail Prompt:
Create a professional legal-news YouTube thumbnail featuring the Bombay High Court building, patent certificate graphics, innovation and sustainability-themed imagery representing biodegradable products and natural fibres, courtroom visuals, scales of justice, and patent law icons. Prominently display bold text: “PATENT REVOCATION QUASHED”, “BOMBAY HIGH COURT”, and “SAATHI INC WINS”. Show a patent document being protected by a judicial shield while a revoked patent stamp is crossed out. Include visual references to Opposition Board recommendations, post-grant opposition proceedings, and procedural fairness in patent law. Use a premium blue, gold, white, and black color palette suitable for legal news and intellectual property content. Include visual cues for “Reasoned Orders Required” and “Person Interested Test”. Use attached image as Image of lawyer in lawyers dress at left bottom corner which should cover 20 % of entire image area.
