Various Options After Patent Application Being Rejected In India

Once a patent application has been refused by the Controller of Patents, the applicant still has an opportunity to get a grant. This can be done in the following two ways-

  1. Appeal in the Intellectual Property Appellate Board
  2. Review application before the Controller of Patents.

This article aims to lay down the scope and limitation of both these options.


In case, the grant of patent is refused by the Controller, the applicant has the option of appealing this decision to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Board was established by the Central Government in 2003 to hear and decide all appeals from the decisions and orders of the Registrar which earlier came within the jurisdiction of the High Courts and with Section 116 of the Patents Act, 1970, this Board is also the Appellate Board for the purposes of this Act.


Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 deals with when appeals shall lie to the Appellate Board against any decision, order, or direction that is made or issued under the Act by the Central Government or from any act or order of the Controller. For the scope of this article, we shall only focus on orders or decisions made by the Controller. The section lays down all the instances under which an appeal can lie to the Board from the decision of the Controller. The relevant instance for the scope of this article lies in Section 15 and Section 25(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. Section 15 deals with the power of the controller to refuse applications for grant of patent and Section 25(4) states that after giving an opportunity to the applicant and the opponent of being heard, the Controller shall order either to maintain or to amend or to revoke the patent. In other words, this means that after the controller gives the applicant the required time for making the necessary amendments as well as conducting a hearing of both the parties and feels that the requirements of the Act have not been complied with or a pre-grant opposition of the patent holds merit and is successful, he may pass an order refusing the grant of a patent to the applicant. This order refusing the grant can be appealed against by the applicant to the Appellate Board.


Furthermore, under Section 117A(4) of the Act, for an appeal to be heard by the Board it shall be made within 3 months from the date of the decision. The appeal can be made at a further time as well but this will be subject to the rules, if any, made by the Board itself. A recent interpretation of a circuit Bench of the Board further clarified that the three-month period must begin from the date of receipt of communication of the order and not from the date the decision is made. According to Section 117A(3), the appeal must be accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against and the prescribed fees for the same.


Now that we have established the power of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board to hear and decide appeals, the question that arises is what next? Can the applicant further appeal against this order of the Board? Here, it is important to pay attention to Section 117C of the Act which clearly states that no court or other authority shall have jurisdiction in relation to the matters that have been referred to under Section 117A. This means that once the Board has given its decision on an appeal against the order of the Controller refusing grant of a patent, no further appeal can lie to the High Court or the Supreme Court. The order passed by the Appellate Board is communicated to the Controller under Section 117D of the Act and the Controller shall give effect to the same as is required.


Apart from filing an appeal in the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, the applicant has another recourse in case his application is refused by the Controller. The applicant has the option of filing a Review Application before the Controller of Patents. In this case, the Controller who has passed the decision has to review his/her decision and is allowed to alter his/her judgment under extraordinary circumstances or circumstances that are unusual. This power that has been vested in the Controller is governed by Section 77 (1) (f) of The Patents Act, 1970.

Section 77.  Controller to have certain powers of a civil court –

(1) Subject to any rules made on this behalf, the Controller in any proceedings before him under this Act shall have the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely: —

(f) reviewing his own decision on an application made within the prescribed time and in a prescribed manner;”

The power conferred under section 77 is one which is analogous to the powers of a Civil Court (under section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) and one which widens the scope of the Controller’s powers. This power enables the Controller to hear and decide a suit that falls under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with regard to Section 77 (1) (f) of The Patents Act, 1970.

Section 77 (1) (f)

Clause (f) of Section 77 (1) of The Patents Act, 1970 basically deals with the power of the Controller to review his own decisions. This clause makes it possible for an applicant to file a review application before the Controller under Form 24 of the Patent Rules, 2003.


Such an application has to be filed within a period of one month from the date of communication of such decision to the applicant or within such period not exceeding one month thereafter as the Controller may on request made in Form 4 allow. Where the decision in question concerns any other person in addition to the applicant, the Controller has immediately transmitted a copy of each of the application and the statement to the person concerned.


Since the power granted under section 77 (1) (f) is similar to the power granted under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, both the provisions share the same grounds for review. The following can be the grounds o review for an application for review-

  • Discovery of new and important matter or evidence;
  • On account fo some mistake/ error apparent on the face of the record; or
  • For any other sufficient reason.


No appeal can lie from a decision of review that has been given by the Controller under Section 77 (1) (f).


Thus, if we compare the difference between reviews under Section 77 and appeals under Section 117A of the Act, we find that appeals to the Board are allowed only for certain specific circumstances while the review is more general in nature.


The rationale behind the creation of the Appellate Board was speedy disposal of cases and to reduce the burden over the High Courts. It also solves the problem of lack of technical knowledge which is required while hearing such appeals. The applicant, however, must note that the decision of the Appellate Board is final and unappealable.

In the case of Review Applications, it can be inferred that wide powers have been conferred upon the Controller under the provision of Section 77 and such power is equal to that conferred under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Although this provision ensures that justice is served upon the aggrieved party, there is space for prejudice since the review application is filed before the same Controller who first gave the decision.

Author: Sanika Chandekar; 4th Year; BA LLB; Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, and Ascharya Dagur; 2nd Year; LLB; Symbiosis Law School, Pune, Intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at

Leave a Reply



  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010