SAURABH ARORA vs THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

Judgment text excerpt

Digitally signed by MEERA MEERA MAHESH 4-COMMP-46-2025 MAHESH JADHAV JADHAV Date: 2026.03.11 19:07:31 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION JURISDICTION COMM. MISC. PETITION NO. 46 of 2025 Saurabh Arora .… Petitioner Versus Deputy Controller of Patents & Anr. …. Respondents _______ Mr. Hiren Kamod a/w. Mr. Nishank Barolia, Mr. Abhijeet Deshmukh, Mr. Tapan Shah, Mr. Shon Gadgil i/b. Khurana & Khurana, for the Petitioner. Mr. Niranjan Prabhakar Shimpi a/w. Revaa Kadam and Ms. Bhagyashri Waghmare, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Himanshu Kane a/w. Kanak Kadam and Ms. Sharwani Kane i/b. W. S. Kane & Co., for Respondent No.2. _______ CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. RESERVED ON : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 10th MARCH, 2026 JUDGEMENT 1. The present Commercial Miscellaneous Petition impugns an Order dated 7th July 2023 (“impugned order”), by which Respondent No. 1, i.e., the Deputy Controller of Patents, has dismissed the post-grant opposition Page 1 of 20 Meera Jadhav 4-COMMP-46-2025 filed by the Petitioner in respect of Patent No. IN 283059 ("impugned patent") which was granted to Respondent No. 2. Background and Challenge: 2. The Petitioner’s post-grant opposition was under Section 25(2)(c) of the Patents Act 1970 ("the Patents Act”) and was based on an Indian Patent Application bearing no. 1249/DEL/2010, i.e., the prior art (“D1”) cited by the Petitioner (which was subsequently granted as Patent No. IN568478), of which the Petitioner was one of the inventors. 3. It is the Petitioner’s case that despite filing detailed pleadings in the opposition proceeding, the post-grant opposition proceedings came to be disposed of after five years on the sole ground that the prior art cited by the Petitioner cannot be