- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- in United States
- with readers working within the Pharmaceuticals & BioTech and Law Firm industries
- within Intellectual Property, Privacy and Employment and HR topic(s)
In the matter of UPL Limited vs Union of India & Ors., order dated September 16, 2025, the application for patent by UPL Limited relating to 'fungicidal combinations' [201731008009], with claim for a fungicidal combination for controlling a broad spectrum of fungal diseases comprising of ternary or quaternary combination of fungicides was rejected by the Controller accepting the pre-grant representation filed by Respondent 4. The patent was rejected on grounds of lack of novelty under Section 25(1)(b), lack of inventive steps under Section 25(1)(e) and the subject patent being a mere admixture and not an invention under Section 25(1)(f) of the Patents Act, 1970. UPL filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court, [WPA-IPD No.3 of 2024], challenging the impugned order.
UPL challenged the order on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was alleged that the expert evidence adduced during the proceeding in the form of an affidavit was not taken on record by the Controller. UPL contended that, despite extensive submissions based on the analysis and opinion in the expert affidavit, the Controller ignored them and, suo moto, presented his own analysis and opinion based on independent calculations, incorporating elements from Table 5, none of which were furnished by an expert or the petitioner.
UPL's Case
The Controller was required to conduct separate hearings to dispose of the examination of the application based on the FER and the pre-grant opposition, respectively. The Controller chose to pass a common order without affording the petitioner an opportunity for a separate hearing, as contemplated under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act, read with Rule 55(5) of the Patent Rules. According to the petitioner, the Controller was well within his jurisdiction to request expert evidence under Section 77 of the Act and to take the expert opinion on record. The petitioner alleged that no opportunity was granted to them to deal with the expert evidence. UPL contended that the Controller had acted in violation of the principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.
Respondent's Case
The respondents raised a point of maintainability, contending that a statutory remedy by way of an appeal against the impugned order under the Act was available. Therefore, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. The Controller contended that the petitioner was unaware of the effectiveness of the claimed ternary/quaternary combinations as claimed in the specification, and that the advanced effectiveness was knowledge later accrued. The respondents contended that non-acceptance of the expert opinion does not impact the finding of the Controller on the grounds of novelty, inventive steps or under section 3 of the Act.
Court's Analysis and Findings
On Maintainability
According to the Court, the respondent's argument that the writ petition should be dismissed, since UPL had an alternative statutory remedy in the form of an appeal under the Patents Act, is not tenable. Citing the well-established principles on availability of alternative remedy as enunciated in leading cases like Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1], Harbanslal Sahnia vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 107], and Radha Krishan Industries vs State of H.P [(2021) 6 SCC 771], the Court held that although alternative remedies exist, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can still be invoked in cases where there is a violation of natural justice.
On Conducting a Separate Hearing
The Court explained the provisions under Sections 25(1) and 14 and noted that these are distinct compartments as stipulated under the Act. The Court concluded that it is evident that a pre-grant opposition and an application upon examination are both required to be heard separately, i.e., under Sections 25(1) and 14, respectively. Further, the Court observed that the objections raised in the FER are quite different from those raised in the representation under Section 25(1). The Court ruled that the Controller was obliged to provide separate hearings, i.e., (i) to deal with the pre-grant opposition and (ii) to deal with the application under examination and then pass separate orders dealing with all the aspects in both cases.
On Violation of the Principle of Natural Justice
UPL contended that there had been a violation of the principles of natural justice as none of the information, data, or scientific analysis relied on by the Controller was made available to the petitioner. The Court found that in passing the impugned order, the Controller erred in not considering the expert affidavit filed by the petitioner, nor in dealing with the technical evidence raised by the petitioner. The Court observed that the entire exercise of providing independent scientific analysis without granting an opportunity to the petitioner is a serious infirmity in the impugned order and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Decision of the Court
Allowing the writ of UPL, the Court set aside the Controller's order, remanding the matter to the Controller for reconsideration of the application, after considering the expert affidavit relied on by the petitioner. The Court also directed the Hearing Officer to conduct two separate hearings under sections 14 and 25, respectively, by providing an opportunity to be heard, and then to pass separate reasoned orders in both proceedings. The Court further directed that this matter shall be reassigned to a different Hearing Officer.
Takeaways
The Court observed that the principle of "alternative remedy" is not absolute and serves more as a rule of prudence and convenience. The Court is empowered to intervene where procedural or substantive natural justice is denied, or when statutory procedures are ignored. There is no statutory bar to filing a writ petition against the order of the Controller if statutory procedures are ignored and there is a violation of procedure and principles of natural justice, despite the availability of an appeal as a remedy. The Controller should conduct separate hearings under Sections 14 and 25. While passing the order, the Controller should consider all evidence, including the expert affidavit. This ruling will provide much-needed clarity regarding the legal requirement to hold separate hearings for the application (under Sections 14 and 15) and the opposition (under Section 25(1)), read with Rule 55 of the Patents Rules. Any violation of principles of natural justice would entail quashing of the Controller's order by the Court, and the Patent Office may be required to reconsider the case on merits.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
