Facts: The Petitioner, Saurabh Arora, filed a post-grant opposition under Section 25(2)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970, against Patent No. IN 283059 granted to Respondent No. 2. The opposition was based on a prior art document ("D1"), which was an Indian Patent Application (1249/DEL/2010) where the Petitioner was a co-inventor. D1 had a priority date of 31st May 2010 and was published on 2nd March 2012, whereas the impugned patent had a later priority date of 15th September 2010. Despite these dates and identical claims being noted, the Deputy Controller of Patents (Respondent No. 1) dismissed the opposition via an order dated 7th July 2023. The dismissal was based on a single-sentence finding that D1 was not an "appropriate document" within the meaning of Section 25(2)(c), without providing any technical analysis or reasons for such a conclusion.
Procedural Posture: The Petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller's order by filing a Commercial Miscellaneous Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (Commercial Division).
Issue: Whether the order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents was a "speaking order" and whether the dismissal of a post-grant opposition without technical comparison or recorded reasons is legally sustainable.
Holding: No, the order is not sustainable. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration before a different Controller.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the impugned order was "wholly unreasoned and non-speaking". It noted that reasons constitute the "essence and foundation of every judicial or quasi-judicial determination". Since the order was appealable under Section 117A, the appellate court must have the benefit of examining the logic that weighed with the authority. The Controller failed to conduct a technical comparison of the claims of D1 and the impugned patent, which is essential to determine if the requirements of Section 25(2)(c) are met. The Court rejected the Respondents' argument that the High Court should decide the merits itself to save time, stating that such a move would allow the Controller to abdicate statutory duties. The Court emphasized that the absence of reasoning reflects a "complete non-application of mind" and cannot be cured by the Court undertaking the primary technical exercise for the first time.