Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2008

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.15727 of 2008)

J. Mitra & Co. Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (s)

versus

Asst. Controller of Patents & Desig. & Ors. .... Respondent (s)

WITH

Civil Appeal No. ………of 2008 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.15729 of 2008

J U D G M E N T

S.H. KAPADIA, J.

1.Leave granted.

2.For the sake of convenience we refer to the facts

mentioned in Civil Appeal No……………. of 2008 (arising out of

S.L.P. (C) No.15729 of 2008) filed by J. Mitra & Co. Pvt. Ltd.

3.This matter is a classic illustration of the confusion

which has emerged on account of the postponement of in-part

commencement of Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005.

4.Quite often the commencement of an Act is postponed to

some specified future date or to such date as the Appropriate

Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette,

appoint. Provision is also at times made for appointment of

different dates for coming into force of different parts of the

same Act. This is what has exactly happened in this case

resulting into utter confusion with regard to pending FAO

No.293/06 filed by respondent No.3 in the High Court under

Section 116 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 as amended by

the Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 w.e.f. 26.3.99.

5.Span Diagnostics Limited, respondent No.3 herein, is a

public limited company established in 1972 to indigenously

develop and manufacture a comprehensive range of ready-

made diagnostic reagents made by clinical pathology

laboratories. On 14.6.2000 J.Mitra & Company Pvt. Ltd.,

2

appellant herein, filed its application for grant of patent. After

scrutiny, the said application stood notified by the Patent

Office on 20.11.2004.

6.Thus, proceedings commenced before the Controller of

Patents in the year 2000 when the appellant herein sought a

patent of their device which was opposed by respondent no.3

in the year 2000. By then, the Patents (Amendment) Act,

1999 had amended the Patents Act, 1970 w.e.f. 26.3.99.

Section 25 of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by Patents

(Amendment) Act, 1999 dealt with opposition to a patent vide

Section 25. At that time appeals against decisions made by

the Controller pertaining to “pre-grant oppositions” under

Section 25 were maintainable before the High Court under

Section 116(2) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.

7.We quote hereinbelow Sections 25 and 116 as it stood in

the year 2000 under the Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999

which read as under:

“Section 25. Opposition to grant of patent:

3

(1) At any time within four months from the date of advertisement of

the acceptance of a complete specification under this Act (or within

such further period not exceeding one month in the aggregate as the

Controller may allow on application made to him in the prescribed

manner before the expiry of the four months aforesaid) any person

interested may give notice to the Controller of opposition to the grant

of the patent on any of the following grounds, namely:

a. that the applicant for the patent or the person under or through

whom he claims, wrongfully obtained the invention or any part

thereof from him or from a person under or through whom he claims;

b. that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete

specification has been published before the priority date of the claim

–

i. in any specification filed in pursuance of an application for

a patent made in India on or after the 1st day of January,

1912; or

ii. in India or elsewhere, in any other document:

Provided that the ground specified in Sub-clause (ii) shall not be

available where such publication does not constitute an anticipation

of the invention by virtue of Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3) of

Section 29;

that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete

specification is claimed in a claim of a complete specification

published on or after the priority date of the applicant’s claim and

filed in pursuance of an application for a patent in India, being a

claim of which the priority date is earlier than that of the applicant’s

claim;

a. that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the

complete specification was publicly known or publicly used

in India before the priority date of that claim.

4

Explanation – For the purposes of this clause, an invention relating

to a process for which a patent is claimed shall be deemed to have

been publicly known or publicly used in India before the priority

date of the claim if a product made by that process had already been

imported into India before that date except where such importation

has been for the purpose of reasonable trial or experiment only;

b. that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the

complete specification is obvious and clearly does not involve

any inventive step, having regard to the matter published as

mentioned in clause (b) or having regard to what was used in

India before the priority date of the applicant’s claim;

c. that the subject of any claim of the complete specification is

not an invention within the meaning of this Act, or is not

patentable under this Act;

d. that the complete specification does not sufficiently and

clearly describe the invention or the method by which it is to

be performed;

e. that the applicant has failed to disclose to the Controller the

information required by Section 8 or has furnished the

information which in any material particular was false to his

knowledge;

f. that in the case of a convention application, the application

was not made within twelve months from the date of the first

application for protection for the invention made in a

convention country by the applicant or a person from whom

he derives title;

but on no other ground.

(2) Where any such notice of opposition is duly given, the Controller

shall notify the applicant and shall give to the applicant and the

opponent an opportunity to be heard before deciding the case.

5

(3) The grant of a patent shall not be refused on the ground stated in

Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) if no patent has been granted in

pursuance of the application mentioned in that clause; and for the

purpose of any inquiry under clause (d) or clause (e) of that sub-

section, no account shall be taken of any secret use.

Section 116. Appeals

(1) No appeal shall lie from any decision, order or correction made

of issued under this Act by the Central Government, or from any act

or order of the Controller for the purpose of giving effect to any such

decision, order or direction.

(2) Save as otherwise expressly provided in Sub-section (1), an

appeal shall lie to a High Court from any decision, order or direction

of the Controller under any of the following provisions, that is to say,

Section 15, Section 16, Section17, Section 18, Section 19, Section

20, Section 25, Section 27, Section 28, Section 51, Section 54,

Section 57, Section 60, Section 61, Section 63, Sub-section (3) of

Section 69, Section 78, Section 84, Section 86, Section 88(3),

Section 89, Section 93, Section 96 and Section 97.”

(3) Every appeal under this section shall be in writing and shall be

made within three months from the date of the decision, order or

direction, as the case may be, of the Controller, or within such

further time as the High Court may in accordance with the rules

made by it under Section 158 allow.”

(emphasis supplied by us)

8.Suffice it to note that under Patents (Amendment) Act,

1999 there was only one right given to a person interested to

oppose the grant of patent by filing objections at the pre-grant

stage. Under the said Amendment Act, 1999, as stated above,

6

vide Section 116 (2) a right of appeal was available to the

aggrieved party against orders passed under Section 25. The

said appellate remedy was available by way of an appeal to the

High Court.

9.In 2002, the Legislature desired an amendment to the

law and intended to create an appellate forum to hear appeals

against orders passed by the Controller consequently Patents

(Amendment) Act, 2002 was promulgated on 25.6.2002.

However, it was not brought into force immediately. It may be

noted that in the said Amendment Act, 2002, no provision was

made pertaining to “post-grant opposition”. That provision

came to be made only under the Patents (Amendment) Act,

2005 which was promulgated on 4.4.2005 w.e.f. 1.1.2005.

10.Vide Section 47 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002

entire Chapter XIX stood substituted. Sections 116 and 117A

were reworded which read as under:

“Section 116. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Appellate

Board established under Section 83 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

shall be the Appellate Board for the purposes of this Act and the said

7

Appellate Board shall exercise the jurisdiction, power and authority

conferred on it by or under this Act:

Provided that the Technical Member of the Appellate Board for the

purposes of this Act shall have the qualifications specified in Sub-

section (2).

(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Technical

Member for the purposes of this Act unless he-

(a) has, at least five years, hold the post of Controller under

this Act or has exercised the functions of the Controller under

this Act for at least five years; or

(b) has, for at least ten years, functioned as a Registered

Patent Agent and possesses a degree in engineering or

technology or a masters degree in science from any University

established under law for the time being in force or

equivalent; or

(c) has, for at least ten years, been an advocate of a proven

specialized experience in practicing law relating to patents

and designs.

Section 117A. (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in Sub-

section (2), no appeal shall lie from any decision, order or direction

made or issued under this Act by the Central Government, or from

any act or order of the Controller for the purpose of giving effect to

any such decision, order or direction.

(2) An appeal shall lie to the Appellate Board from any decision,

order or direction of the Controller or Central Government under

Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section

20, Section 25, Section 27, Section 28, Section 51, Section 54,

Section 57, Section 60, Section 61, Section 63, Section 66, Sub-

section (3) of Section 69, Section 78, Sub-sections (1) to (5) of

Section 84, Section 85, Section 88, Section 91, Section 92 and

Section 94.

8

(3) Every appeal under this section shall be in prescribed form and

shall be verified in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be

accompanied by a copy of the decision, order or direction appealed

against any by such fees as may be prescribed.

(4) Every appeal shall be made within three months from the date of

the decision, order or direction, as the case may be, of the Controller

or the Central Government or within such further time as the

Appellate Board may, in accordance with the rules made by it,

allow.”

(emphasis supplied by us)

11.The provisions of the said Amendment Act, 2002,

however, were not simultaneously brought into force. Suffice

it to note that Sections 116 and 117A were not brought into

force. However, Section 25 was brought into force vide

Notification dated 20.5.2003. Even as on 20.5.2003 vide

Section 25 only one right to oppose a patent at the pre-grant

stage was available and appeal against an order, passed by

the earlier, lay before the High Court under the then existing

Section 116 of the Patents Act, 1970 for the reason that the

amended Sections 116 and 117A were not brought into force.

9

12.Without giving effect to the amendments to Sections 116

and 117A suggested by Section 47 of the Patents

(Amendment) Act, 2002, on 4.4.2005 the Legislature enacted

the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. Even here, not all

provisions were simultaneously brought into force. Only

certain sections of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 were

brought into force.

13.Vide Section 23 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005,

the then existing Section 25 was substituted. The substituted

Section 25 reads as under:

“25. Opposition to the patent.- (1) Where an application for a

patent has been published but a patent has not been granted, any

person may, in writing, represent by way of opposition to the

Controller against the grant of patent on the ground-

(a) that the applicant for the patent or the person under or through

whom he claims, wrongfully obtained the invention or any part

thereof from him or from a person under or through whom he

claims;

(b) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete

specification has been published before the priority date of the

claim-

10

(i) in any specification filed in pursuance of an application

for a patent made in India on or after the 1st day of January,

1912; or

(ii) in India or elsewhere, in any other document:

Provided that the ground specified in Sub-clause (ii) shall not be

available where such publication does not constitute an anticipation

of the invention by virtue of Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3) of

Section 29;

(c) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete

specification is claimed in a claim of a complete specification

published on or after the priority date of the applicant's claim and

filed in pursuance of an application for a patent in India, being a

claim of which the priority date is earlier than that of the

applicant's claim;

(d) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete

specification was publicly known or publicly used in India before

the priority date of that claim.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause, an invention relating

to a process for which a patent is claimed shall be deemed to have

been publicly known or publicly used in India before the priority

date of the claim if a product made by that process had already

been imported into India before that date except where such

importation has been for the purpose of reasonable trial or

experiment only;

(e) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete

specification is obvious and clearly does not involve any inventive

step, having regard to the matter published as mentioned in clause

(b) or having regard to what was used in India before the priority

date of the applicant's claim;

11

(f) that the subject of any claim of the complete specification is not

an invention within the meaning of this Act, or is not patentable

under this Act;

(g) that the complete specification does not sufficiently and clearly

describe the invention or the method by which it is to be

performed;

(h) that the applicant has failed to disclose to the Controller the

information required by Section 8 or has furnished the information

which in any material particular was false to his knowledge;

(i) that in the case of convention application, the application was

not made within twelve months from the date of the first

application for protection for the invention made in a convention

country by the applicant or a person from whom he derives title;

(j) that the complete specification does not disclose or wrongly

mentions the source or geographical origin of biological material

used for the invention;

(k) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete

specification is anticipated having regard to the knowledge, oral or

otherwise, available within any local or indigenous community in

India or elsewhere, but on no other ground and the Controller shall,

if requested by such person for being heard, hear him and dispose

of such representation in such manner and within such period as

may be prescribed.

(2) At any time after the grant of patent but before the expiry of a

period of one year from the date of publication of grant of a patent,

any person interested may give notice of opposition to the

Controller in the prescribed manner on any of the following

grounds, namely:

12

(a) that the patentee or the person under or through whom he

claims, wrongfully obtained the invention or any part thereof from

him or from a person under or through whom he claims;

(b) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete

specification has been published before the priority date of the

claim-

(i) in any specification filed in pursuance of an application

for a patent made in India on or after the 1st day of January,

1912; or

(ii) in India or elsewhere, in any other document:

Provided that the ground specified in Sub-clause (ii) shall not be

available where such publication does not constitute an anticipation

of the invention by virtue of Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3) of

Section 29;

(c) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete

specification is claimed in a claim of a complete specification

published on or after the priority date of the claim of the patentee

and filed in pursuance of an application for a patent in India, being

a claim of which the priority date is earlier than that of the claim of

the patentee;

(d) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete

specification was publicly known or publicly used in India before

the priority date of that claim.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause, an invention relating

to a process for which a patent is granted shall be deemed to have

been publicly known or publicly used in India before the priority

date of the claim if a product made by that process had already

been imported into India before that date except where such

importation has been for the purpose of reasonable trial or

experiment only;

13

(e) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete

specification is obvious and clearly does not involve any inventive

step, having regard to the matter published as mentioned in clause

(b) or having regard to what was used in India before the priority

date of the claim;

(f) that the subject of any claim of the complete specification is not

an invention within the meaning of this Act, or is not patentable

under this Act;

(g) that the complete specification does not sufficiently and clearly

describe the invention or the method by which it is to be

performed;

(h) that the patentee has failed to disclose to the Controller the

information required by Section 8 or has furnished the information

which in any material particular was false to his knowledge;

(i) that in the case of a patent granted on convention application,

the application for patent was not made within twelve months from

the date of the first application for protection for the invention

made in a convention country or in India by the patentee or a

person from whom he derives title;

(j) that the complete specification does not disclose or wrongly

mentions the source and geographical origin of biological material

used for the invention;

(k) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete

specification was anticipated having regard to the knowledge, oral

or otherwise, available within any local or indigenous community

in India or elsewhere,

but on no other ground.

14

(3) (a) Where any such notice of opposition is duly given under

Sub-section (2), the Controller shall notify the patentee.

(b) On receipt of such notice of opposition, the Controller shall, by

order in writing, constitute a Board to be known as the Opposition

Board consisting of such officers as he may determine and refer

such notice of opposition along with the documents to that Board

for examination and submission of its recommendations to the

Controller.

(c) Every Opposition Board constituted under clause (b) shall

conduct the examination in accordance with such procedure as may

be prescribed.

(4) On receipt of the recommendation of the Opposition Board and

after giving the patentee and the opponent an opportunity of being

heard, the Controller shall order either to maintain or to amend or

to revoke the patent.

(5) While passing an order under Sub-section (4) in respect of the

ground mentioned in clause (d) or clause (e) of Sub-section (2), the

Controller shall not take into account any personal document or

secret trial or secret use.

(6) In case the Controller issues an order under Sub-section (4) that

the patent shall be maintained subject to amendment of the

specification or any other document, the patent shall stand

amended accordingly.”

(emphasis supplied by us)

14.We also quote Section 61 of the Patents (Amendment)

Act, 2005 which reads as under:

15

“Section 61. In Section 117A of the principal Act [as inserted by

Section 47 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, in Sub-section

(2), for the words and figures “section 20, Section 25, Section 27,

Section 28,”, the words, figures and brackets “section 20, Sub-

section (4) of Section 25, Section 28” shall be substituted.”*

*(this section was not brought into force till 2.4.2007)”

(emphasis supplied by us)

15.In short, by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, for the

first time a dichotomy was introduced in the Patent Law

between “opposition to the pre-grant” and “opposition to the

post-grant of patent”. This was the major structural change in

the Patent Law. Similarly, under the Patents (Amendment)

Act, 2005, appeal was restricted to the post-grant opposition

orders and that appeal lay before the Appellate Board and not

to the High Court. Here also, Section 25 of the Patents Act,

1970 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (which

refers to “pre-grant opposition” and “post-grant opposition”)

was brought into force on and from 1.1.2005 whereas

amended Section 117A by which appeal was provided for

against post-grant opposition order was not brought into force

till 2.4.2007. One more aspect needs to be mentioned. As

stated, vide Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, a dichotomy was

16

brought in between pre-grant and post-grant opposition

orders w.e.f. 1.1.2005. But when it came to filing of first

appeal for some unknown reasons, the amended Section 117A

(which provided for only one statutory appeal and that too

against post-grant orders passed by the Controller) was not

brought into force. The result is that although the Legislature

intended to provide for only one statutory appeal to the

Appellate Board, by reason of Section 61 of the Patents

(Amendment) Act, 2005 not being brought into force till 2.4.07

a strange situation developed. The Legislature intended to

provide for only one statutory appeal to the Appellate Board

but by not bringing Section 61 into force till 2.4.07, appeals

filed during the interregnum, as in this case, became

vulnerable and liable to be dismissed as misconceived as is

contended by the appellant. This is the controversy which

needs to be resolved in this case.

16.On 19.10.2006 when FAO No.293/06 was filed in the

High Court, Chapter XIX of the parent Act as amended vide

Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 continued to be in operation

17

notwithstanding the enactment of the Patents (Amendment)

Act, 2002 and the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 as the

amended Sections 116 and 117A were brought into force only

vide Notification dated 2.4.07. One more point needs to be

noted. Section 117G of the principal Act was substituted vide

Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. It reads as under:

“Section 117G. Transfer of pending proceedings to Appellate

Board.- All cases of appeals against any order or decision of the

Controller and all cases pertaining to revocation of patent other than

on a counter-claim in a suit for infringement and rectification of

register pending before any High Court, shall be transferred to the

Appellate Board from such date as may be notified by the Central

Government in the Official Gazette and the Appellate Board may

proceed with the matter either de novo or from the stage it was so

transferred.”

17.On reading amended Section 117G it becomes clear that

all appeals against any order or decision of the Controller had

to be transferred to the Appellate Board from such date as

may be notified by the Central Government in the Official

Gazette. This amended Section 117G was also brought into

force vide Notification dated 3.4.2007. Under Notes on

Clauses attached to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it

has been clarified, vide clause 62, that amended Section 117G

18

is consequential to the enforcement of the jurisdiction of the

Appellate Board under Section 64 which results to revocation

of patent. Vide clause 47 of Notes on Clauses attached to the

Statement of Objects and Reasons, it has been clarified that

Section 64 is also amended vide Patents (Amendment) Act,

2005 to confer wider jurisdiction on the Appellate Board in

matters of revocation of patent, therefore, amended Section

117G which is brought into force only from 3.4.2007 dealt

with transfer of pending proceedings from the High Court to

the Appellate Board.

18.The question which arises for determination in this batch

of civil appeals is : whether FAO No.292/06 and FAO

No.293/06 filed by respondent no.3 herein in the High Court

were liable to be dismissed. According to the appellant, with

the change in Section 25 brought about by Patents

(Amendment) Act, 2005, a dichotomy was introduced in the

Patents Act, 1970. According to the appellant, that dichotomy

was between “pre-grant opposition” and “post-grant

opposition”. According to the appellant, this was a structural

19

change in the principal Act. According to the appellant, on

23.8.06 the Controller rejected its “pre-grant opposition” and

on that day “post-grant opposition” avenue was open to

respondent no.3 vide Section 25(2). According to the

appellant, under the amended Section 25 on rejection of “pre-

grant opposition” it was open to respondent no.3 to move an

application opposing grant of patent under Section 25(2). The

patent was granted to the appellant on 22.9.06. According to

the appellant, it was open to respondent no.3 to challenge the

grant of patent by making “post-grant opposition” under

Section 25(2) from which an appeal was maintainable to the

Appellate Board. This was not done. Further, according to

the appellant, “pre-grant opposition” was filed by respondent

no.3 under Section 25(1) on 21.3.05. According to the

appellant, though the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005,

amended Section 25 by enacting the amendment on 4.4.05

the said amendment was brought into force w.e.f. 1.1.2005

and, therefore, it was open to respondent no.3 to challenge the

grant of patent by invoking Section 25(2) of the Patents Act,

1970. According to the appellant, with the change in the

20

structure of the Act providing for only one statutory appeal

and that too only against the order granting patent under

Section 25(4), the appeal filed by respondent no.3 against pre-

grant opposition order was not maintainable on 19.10.06 by

which time, as stated above, Section 25 stood restructured

providing for a dichotomy between “pre-grant opposition” and

“post-grant opposition”.

19.On the other hand, on behalf of respondent no.3, it has

been urged that on 19.10.06 it had filed an appeal in the High

Court under unamended Section 116 of the parent Act; that,

even though Section 25 stood restructured w.e.f. 1.1.05 on

account of absence of notification bringing the amended law

into force, Sections 116 and 117A (as amended) providing

appeal to the Appellate Board came into force only with effect

from 2.4.07 and, therefore, according to the said respondent,

its first appeal being FAO No.293/06 continued to be governed

by the law as it stood on 19.10.06 (on which date appeal to

the High Court was maintainable); that, on 23.8.06 the “pre-

grant opposition”, filed by respondent no.3, stood rejected,

21

however, on that date appeal against pre-grant opposition

order was maintainable, under Section 116, to the High Court

and, therefore, there is no merit in the argument advanced on

behalf of the appellant that the first appeal filed by respondent

no.3 was misconceived; that, it is true that Section 25 got

restructured w.e.f. 1.1.2005, however, such restructuring did

not obliterate the first appeal filed by respondent no.3 on

19.10.2006; and lastly it was argued on behalf respondent

no.3 that the appellant had filed its application for grant of

patent on 14.6.2000, it was notified on 20.11.04, however,

respondent no.3 had filed its “pre-grant opposition” under

Section 25(1) on 21.3.05 when the Patents (Amendment) Act,

2005 was not promulgated (it was promulgated on 4.4.05)

and, therefore, according to respondent no.3 its “pre-grant

opposition” filed on 21.3.05 was valid and proper as

respondent no.3 could not have invoked Section 25(2)

proceedings on that day, namely, 21.3.05 as the law stood

enacted bringing in Section 25(2) only on 4.4.05. In the

peculiar circumstances of this case it was urged on behalf of

22

respondent no.3 that no interference is called for by this Court

in this batch of civil appeals.

20.As stated above, quite often the commencement of an Act

is postponed to some specific future date or to such date as

the Appropriate Government may, by notification in the

Official Gazette, appoint. At times provision is made for

appointment of different dates for coming into force of different

parts of the same Act.

21.An Act cannot be said to commence or to be in force

unless it is brought into operation by legislative enactment or

by the exercise of authority by a delegate empowered to bring

it into operation.

22.Applying the above tests to the present case, we find that

by Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 for the first time a

dichotomy was inserted in the Patent Law by providing vide

Section 25(1) for “opposition to pre-grant” and vide Section 25

(2) for “opposition to post-grant” of patent. By reason of

23

Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, the kind of opposition

available under the said 1970 Act is different from what

existed earlier. Previously, there was no “post-grant

opposition”. Previously, the only provision of challenge by an

interested party was a “pre-grant” challenge under Section 25

(1) as it then stood. Therefore, the Courts had evolved the

‘rule of caution’ as the patent had not faced any challenge at

the hands of interested parties. There is, however, a radical

shift due to incorporation of Section 25(2) where an interested

party is granted the right to challenge the patent after its

grant. The ground of challenge under Section 25(1) is

identical to Section 25(2) of the said 1970 Act. However,

Section 25(1) is wider than Section 25(2) as the latter is

available only to a “person aggrieved”. The main difference

between Section 25(1) and Section 25(2), as brought about by

Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, is that even after a patent is

granted, “post-grant opposition” can be filed under Section 25

(2) for a period of one year. The reason is obvious. In relation

to patents that are of recent origin, a higher scrutiny is

necessary. This is the main rationale underlying Section 25(2)

24

of the said 1970 Act. Therefore, the Legislature intended an

appeal under Section 117A(2) to the Appellate Board from any

decision, order or direction of the Controller, inter alia, under

Section 25(4) [which refers to the power of the Controller to

maintain, amend or revoke the patent].

23.In the present case, the Legislature intended to provide

for two types of scrutiny followed by one statutory appeal to

the Appellate Board against “post-grant proceedings”. The

Legislature intended to have a dichotomy between “pre-grant

opposition” and “post-grant opposition”. However, the

Legislature intended that there shall be only one statutory

appeal against grant of patent. The Legislature intended to

obliterate appeal from “pre-grant proceedings”, which existed

earlier. However, it was left to the Executive to bring the

enacted law into force vide notification. For some unknown

reasons, the amended Sections 116 and 117A(2) were not

brought into force till 2.4.07 whereas the concept of “pre-

grant” and “post-grant” oppositions were brought into force

w.e.f.1.1.2005. This is where the legislative intent got

25

defeated during the interregnum. It is during this

interregnum that respondent no.3 filed its FAO No.293/06 in

the High Court under Section 116, as it stood on 19.10.06

under the Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999. On that date, the

amended Section 117A, suggested by Patents (Amendment)

Act, 2005, was not brought into force. On 19.10.06 the old

law prevailed under which an appeal lay before the High

Court. Respondent no.3, in both the cases, preferred first

appeals to the High Court under Section 116 as it then stood.

They are FAO No.292/06 and FAO No.293/06. We have to

decide the fate of these pending appeals. One more aspect

needs to be mentioned. Under the Patents (Amendment) Act,

2005, appeal is provided to the Appellate Board against the

order of the Controller under Section 25(4). However, that

statutory appeal is maintainable only in “post-grant

opposition” proceedings whereas respondent no.3 herein has

instituted first appeals under the law then prevailing,

challenging the Order rejecting “pre-grant opposition” dated

23.8.06.

26

24.Taking into account the complexities involved in this

case, on account of a hiatus created by reason of the law not

being brought into force in time, we are of the view that the

first appeals, filed by respondent no.3 in the High Court being

FAO No.292/06 and FAO No.293/06, would remain in the

High Court. The said appeals would be heard and disposed of

by the High Court in accordance with law under Section 116

of the said 1970 Act as it stood on 19.10.06. The High Court

will hear and decide the validity of the Order passed by the

Controller dated 23.8.06 rejecting “pre-grant opposition” filed

by respondent no.3. We are informed that there are hardly

one or two matters of this nature which are pending.

Therefore, we are of the view that respondent no.3 cannot be

let without remedy. In the special circumstances of this case,

particularly when after 2.4.07 appeals against orders rejecting

“pre-grant opposition” are not maintainable and particularly

when FAO No.292/06 and FAO No.293/06 were filed by

respondent no.3 prior to 2.4.07 under the old law, we are of

the view that these two appeals shall be heard and decided by

the High Court in accordance with law. The Appellate Board

27

after 2.4.07 is entitled to hear appeals only arising from orders

passed by the Controller under Section 25(4), i.e., in cases of

orders passed in “post-grant opposition”. Therefore, there is

no point in transferring the pending FAO No.292/06 and FAO

No.293/06 to the Appellate Board which has no authority to

decide matters concerning “pre-grant opposition”. Moreover,

it may be noted that even Section 117G, which refers to

transfer of pending proceedings to the Appellate Board, is also

brought into force vide Notification dated 3.4.07. Keeping in

mind the peculiar nature of the problem in hand, we are of the

view that ends of justice would be subserved if the High Court

is directed to hear and decide the appeals bearing FAO

No.292/06 and FAO No.293/06 in accordance with law as it

then stood, i.e., under Section 116 under Patents

(Amendment) Act, 1999 against Orders passed by the

Controller in “pre-grant opposition” proceedings.

25.Accordingly, the two Civil Appeals, filed by the appellant

herein, stand disposed of with no order as to costs.

28

……………………………J.

(S.H. Kapadia)

……………………………J.

(B. Sudershan Reddy)

New Delhi;

August 21, 2008.

29