The Bombay High Court in Ashit Padhaya v. Assistant Controller of Patents emphasized that Controllers must base patent revocations on disclosed evidence, as fresh undisclosed evidence cannot be considered. This marks a significant procedural clarification.
Bombay High Court Reviews Controller's Evidence in Patent Objections
The Bombay High Court's recent ruling in Ashit Padhaya v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs delineates critical procedural standards regarding the assessment of obviousness by patent Controllers. The judgment focuses on the Controller's reliance on undisclosed evidence that was neither communicated to the Opposition Board nor to the patentee prior to a patent revocation.
The Court highlighted that procedural fairness necessitates that all evidence considered in patent determinations must be disclosed to the relevant parties. This ruling addresses an important gap in practice where Controllers might have previously relied on non-disclosed evidence, setting a benchmark that reinforces transparency.
The ruling asserts that the absence of evidence supporting common general knowledge does not justify reliance on undisclosed information in patent assessments. It reinforces the necessity of fair disclosure in the patent examination process.
This decision serves as a crucial guideline for practitioners involved in patent opposition proceedings, ensuring they are cognizant of their right to challenge any undisclosed evidence used by Controllers in making their decisions. This enhances the fairness and integrity of the patent review process.
Citations
- Ashit Padhaya v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (2026) 2 BHC 333
