Scope of remand restricts Patent Controller from introducing fresh prior art or de novo objections post-examination.

The Applicant/Petitioner applied for a patent in 2017. Following an examination process including a First Examination Report (FER) in 2020 and a hearing in 2021, the Respondent refused the patent

On October 15, 2025, the High Court set aside the refusal order via an "Order of Remand," noting that the Respondent conceded to a violation of natural justice because new objections were raised for the first time in the final order

The matter was remanded for a "fresh hearing" to be concluded within three months

Upon remand, the Respondent issued a new hearing notice dated January 16, 2026, introducing entirely new prior art references (D1 to D6) and fresh objections

The Applicant filed this Interim Application seeking a clarification that the remand was restricted to existing objections on record

The Court applied the principle that an authority to which a matter is remanded is bound to act strictly within the confines of the remand order and cannot reopen issues beyond those limits, as established in Shree Champalal Kothari Trust v. Rajhans Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Shivshankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char

In patent matters, the court followed the precedent that remands for procedural infirmities (like breach of natural justice) contemplate fresh consideration on the existing record rather than a total re-examination, citing Euro-Apex B.V. v. Controller of Patents and Designs and Grupo Petrotemex S.A. de C.V. v. Controller of Patents

While Clause (k) of Circular No. 4 of 2011 allows Controllers to raise further objections during general prosecution, this administrative power is subject to judicial directions in a specific remand

The Court reasoned that the Order of Remand was passed specifically because the Petitioner was denied an opportunity to meet certain objections, not because of a deficiency in the examination process itself

Since the Respondent had conceded the procedural error and did not seek liberty to raise fresh grounds at the time of the remand, the mandate to "consider afresh" was limited to the existing record

The Court rejected the Respondent’s argument that public interest or statutory "gatekeeper" duties allowed it to ignore the temporal and substantive limits of the remand

The Court found that introducing new prior art (D1-D6) on the final day of the three-month deadline set by the Court was contrary to the spirit of the remand

The Court distinguished between "elaborating" on existing objections (permissible) and introducing "wholly new grounds" (impermissible)

The Court clarified that the Respondent may only elaborate upon or clarify objections already emerging from the existing record. The Respondent was directed to complete the hearing and pass an order within 8 weeks. A stay on the operation of this judgment was granted for four weeks to allow the Respondent to appeal.