Section 14 Hearing is Mandatory Regardless of Pre-Grant Opposition Proceedings under the Patents Act

The Petitioner filed Patent Application No. 201627001750 on March 21, 2016

Following a First Examination Report (FER), the Controller scheduled a hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act for January 5, 2021

However, the Controller cancelled this hearing an hour before it was to commence, recording that a fresh hearing would be granted "in due course"

Subsequently, Respondent No. 3 filed a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1)

The Controller conducted a hearing for the opposition on April 19, 2023, but thereafter rejected the entire patent application solely under Section 25(1) without ever providing the Petitioner the promised Section 14 examination hearing or passing a formal order under Section 15

The Petitioner challenged this order as a procedural violation of the statutory scheme

Whether the Controller of Patents can reject a patent application based on a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) without affording the applicant a mandatory hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act

Whether the examination process under Chapter IV and the opposition process under Chapter V are distinct and independent pathways that both require adherence to their respective procedural mandates

The court primarily applied the statutory framework of the Patents Act, 1970, specifically distinguishing between Chapter IV (Publication and Examination) and Chapter V (Opposition)

It relied on Sections 14 and 15, which mandate an opportunity for a hearing before refusal

Rule 55 of the Patent Rules, which governs opposition procedures

The court further applied the principle from Novartis AG v. Natco Pharma & Anr., establishing that examination and opposition are parallel, non-merging pathways

It followed Abraxis Bioscience LLC v. Union of India, holding that a Section 14 hearing is a mandatory statutory right

UPL Limited v. Union of India, which requires separate hearings for examination and opposition even if disposed of by a composite order

The Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure (09.04(12)) was also cited to affirm that no patent is refused without a Section 14 hearing

The Court rejected the Respondent's argument that a Section 25(1) hearing suffices for all purposes and that a Section 14 hearing would be repetitive

The Court reasoned that the statutory design treats the Controller’s power to grant or refuse a patent under Section 15 (Chapter IV) as independent of the opposition aid provided by Section 25 (Chapter V)

By canceling the Section 14 hearing and promising a future date that never came, the Controller violated the Petitioner's legitimate expectation and statutory rights

The Court observed that the Controller's actions were arbitrary, especially since the Patent Office consistently followed the dual-hearing procedure in other cases

The Court emphasized that an opponent has no right to participate in an examination hearing, and conflating the two processes dilutes the rigour of the examination stage

Consequently, the failure to pass an order under Section 15 while refusing the patent was a jurisdictional and procedural error

The Court set aside the Impugned Order dated June 26, 2023

It remanded the Patent Application back for fresh consideration by a different Controller to ensure impartiality, with directions to comply with hearing procedures under Sections 14, 15, and 25 of the Act

No order was made as to costs