The Calcutta High Court, in UPL Limited v. Haryana Pesticides Manufacturers Association & Anr. (IPDPTA No. 116 of 2023), set aside an order of the Controller of Patents rejecting UPL Limited’s patent application relating to a herbicidal combination. The judgment, delivered on 5 February 2026 by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, addresses the procedural requirements governing patent examination and pre-grant opposition under the Patents Act, 1970.

The patent application, published in 2019, was opposed through a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) of the Act. The Controller subsequently issued a single composite order deciding both the examination of the application and the pre-grant opposition, rejecting the application on grounds including lack of novelty, lack of inventive step and obvious admixture. UPL Limited challenged the order, contending that the Controller had improperly merged the statutory examination and opposition proceedings without providing separate hearings, despite differences in the objections and prior art relied upon at each stage.

The High Court accepted the appellant’s submissions and held that examination proceedings and pre-grant opposition proceedings constitute distinct stages under the statutory framework of the Patents Act. The Court observed that the issuance of a combined order without granting separate opportunities to address the objections raised in each process amounted to a procedural infirmity and violated principles of natural justice.

The Court emphasised that applicants must be afforded a proper opportunity to respond to all objections and prior art relied upon by the Patent Office, and that patent decisions must contain clear and reasoned findings.

Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Controller of Patents for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Source: UPL Limited v. Haryana Pesticides Manufacturers Association & Anr., Calcutta High Court, IPDPTA No. 116 of 2023