The patent office recently introduced the tools to access granted patents without a hearing and refusals without a hearing. The provisions for granting and refusing patents without a hearing are quite interesting. It is interesting because it’s not just about patents—it’s about how the Indian patent system evolves to stay efficient, fair, and relevant in a fast-moving IP world.
On one hand, granting patents without a hearing, especially when objections have been fully and adequately addressed in the FER Response, streamlines the process. It saves time and resources for both the applicant and the Patent Office, allowing patents to be granted more swiftly. This is evident in the case of Application No. 202321015672, filed on March 9, 2023. After receiving the First Examination Report (FER) in November 2024, the applicant submitted a detailed response in February 2025. Since all objections, including those related to novelty and inventiveness, were satisfactorily addressed, the patent was granted on March 26, 2025, without the need for a hearing. This demonstrates that comprehensive and timely responses can significantly expedite the patent grant process.
On the other hand, the possibility of refusing patents without a hearing must be handled with great caution. While it can increase efficiency, there is a risk of unfairness, particularly if applicants are not given an opportunity to be heard before a final decision is made. The case of Star Scientific Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs illustrates this concern. Here, the Delhi High Court overturned a refusal based solely on the applicant’s absence from a scheduled hearing. The Court emphasized that a procedural lapse such as a missed hearing—particularly when later justified or addressed—should not automatically result in refusal. This reinforces the principle that fairness and reasoned decision-making must remain at the core of the patent process.
Thus, patents can be granted quickly without hearings when objections are resolved, but applicants can still request hearings or appeal refusals, ensuring their rights are protected.
To ensure these principles are clearly defined and consistently applied, one can rely on the Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure (MPPP). While the Act and the Rules lay down the statutory framework, the Manual serves as a practical guide for both patent examiners and applicants, offering clarity on how these provisions are implemented in day-to-day practice. For instance, Section 09.04.01 of the MPPP says, “The Controller considers the report of the examiner ordinarily within one month from the date of the receipt of such report and a gist of objections, if any, is sent to the applicant in the form of a report-First Examination Report (FER)-along with the application and specification, if required. If there is no objection to the grant of patent and no pre-grant opposition under Section 25 (1) is pending, the patent is granted at the earliest.” Section 09.04.12 of the MPPP says, “No patent application is refused without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard, under Section 14 of the Indian Patents Act”. Section 09.04.13 of the MPPP says, “An order of the Controller for refusal of patent under Section 15 is appealable before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board”.
In a nutshell, the MPPP plays a vital role in ensuring that the procedures for granting or refusing patents in India are applied fairly and consistently.
In our opinion, on the one hand, the move towards granting or refusing patents without hearings is a step in the right direction, as it aims to increase efficiency and reduce the backlog of pending cases. By streamlining the patent prosecution process, the IPO can process applications more swiftly, thereby reducing the time and resources required to obtain or reject a patent. This, in turn, can lead to faster innovation, technology transfer, and economic growth.
On the other hand, the provisions governing patent grants or refusals without hearings place a greater responsibility on applicants to provide comprehensive and timely submissions. This shift in responsibility may pose challenges for applicants, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) or individual inventors, who may not have the resources or expertise to navigate the complexities of the patent system. In such cases, the quality and accuracy of submissions become crucial, as they may serve as the sole basis for decision-making.
Enhancing Efficiency Without Compromising Fairness, when applied carefully and thoughtfully, the process of granting or refusing patents without hearings can enhance administrative efficiency without compromising fairness. By leveraging technology and streamlining procedures, the IPO can reduce the burden on applicants and examiners alike, while ensuring that patent decisions are based on sound reasoning and evidence. Ultimately, this approach can strengthen India’s patent system, foster innovation and promoting economic growth.
In conclusion, the move towards granting or refusing patents without hearings is a significant development that requires careful consideration and implementation in an era of rapidly evolving IP jurisprudence in India. By striking a balance between efficiency and fairness, the IPO can harness the potential of this approach to create a more robust and responsive patent system that supports India’s innovation ecosystem.
Authored by : Ms. Anjali Koranga, Ms. Sushmitha Rahul Bhatnase, Ms. Anindita Goswami
Ms. Anjali Koranga and Ms. Sushmitha Rahul Bhatnase are Patent Associates at Hi-Tech and Engineering, and Ms. Anindita Goswami is an Associate Director at Hi-Tech and Engineering.
Leave a Reply