Delhi HC Lets Patent Opponent Correct Inadvertent Form Error In Timely Opposition, Pay ₹28,000 Shortfall As Patentee Faces No Prejudice

The petitioner filed a post-grant opposition to Patent No. 470059 on 4 November 2024, within the statutory one-year period, but uploaded it in Form 30 instead of the prescribed Form 7. It consequently paid ₹12,000 rather than the ₹40,000 fee payable for Form 7.

On 3 September 2025, the petitioner sought correction under Rule 137 of the Patents Rules, 2003, and offered to pay the ₹28,000 shortfall if correction were permitted.

The Patent Office had not decided that request. It maintained that it lacked power to condone delay and relied on the statutory filing deadline and fee requirements.

The petitioner then sought relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

Section 25(2) of the Patents Act, 1970 permits an interested person to give notice of post-grant opposition before expiry of one year from publication of the grant; the provision contains no power to condone delay.

Section 142(3) provides that a document for which a fee is payable is deemed not to have been filed if the fee is not paid within the prescribed time, while Section 2(1)(v) includes payment of the prescribed fee within “prescribed manner”.

Rule 137 of the Patents Rules, 2003 authorises amendment of a document where no special provision applies and correction of a procedural irregularity where it can be obviated without detriment to any person.

The Court also applied the principle that procedural rules are the handmaid of justice and should not defeat the statute’s purpose absent grave injustice.

The Court found that the opposition itself had been filed within the one-year period under Section 25(2); the defect was the inadvertent use of Form 30 rather than Form 7, which also caused the fee shortfall.

As no special provision governed correction of an opposition filed in the wrong form, Rule 137 applied.

The Court therefore treated the form and fee defects as procedural irregularities capable of correction, not as a late filing requiring condonation.

Because the opposition was timely and the correction would not prejudice the patentee, the requirements of Rule 137 were met.

It directed the petitioner to pay the deficient ₹28,000 within three weeks; upon payment, the Patent Office was to consider the post-grant opposition in accordance with law.