Mandatory timelines for National Phase entry and Examination Requests cannot be extended by amending priority dates.

The Appellant filed Indian Patent Application No. 1015/DELNP/2010 on February 15, 2010, as a National Phase Application of a PCT application claiming three priority dates, the earliest being March 22, 2007.

The Appellant failed to enter the national phase within 31 months of the earliest priority date and failed to file a Request for Examination (RFE) within 48 months of the same.

While filing Form-1, the Appellant omitted the first priority date to fit within timelines, allegedly on negligent advice from its first patent agent.

In 2024, during an extended hearing, the Appellant filed Form-13 under Section 57(5) to voluntarily amend/disclaim the earliest priority date to normalize the delays.

The Respondent rejected the amendment and treated the application as withdrawn.

Rule 20(4)(i) of the Patent Rules, 2003, mandates national phase entry within 31 months from the earliest priority date, and Rule 22 creates a legal fiction of "deemed withdrawal" for non-compliance.

Section 11B(1) and Rule 24B(1)(i) prescribe a mandatory 48-month limit for filing an RFE from the priority date, failing which the application is treated as withdrawn under Section 11B(4).

Precedent in Nippon Steel Corporation v. Union of India held that once an application is "deemed withdrawn," the Controller cannot entertain an amendment under Section 57(5) as the application no longer exists in law.

Diebold Self Service Systems v. Union of India affirmed that Rule 22 is mandatory and the word "shall" excludes discretionary extension.

The Court reasoned that the 31-month timeline for national phase entry and the 48-month timeline for RFE are "non-extendable deadlines".

The Court found that the Appellant’s omission of the 2007 priority date in the original Form-1 was a strategic move to mislead the Patent Office into accepting a time-barred application.

The Court rejected the argument that Section 57(5) allows amendment at any time, clarifying that such a request must relate to a "living" application; since the timelines expired years ago, the application was already dead by operation of law.

The Court distinguished between "abandonment" under Section 21 and "deemed withdrawal" under Section 11B(4), holding the latter to be a mandatory statutory consequence that cannot be bypassed via Rule 137 or Section 57.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order dated 29.10.2024, treating the Patent Application as withdrawn due to failure to meet mandatory timelines.