When is a patent grant considered final and legally effective?

Is it the moment the Controller signs the order of grant under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970,

or

only upon the order’s upload on the official website of the Indian Patent Office, or upon generation of the certificate of grant, or upon the patent’s entry in the register under Section 43?

This was the central question before the Delhi High Court in the writ petition in Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v. Controller General of Patents & Ors. [W.P.(C)-IPD 10/2024 and W.P.(C)-IPD 12/2024]. In its judgment dated April 30, 2025, the Court made it clear that the decisive point in time is the actual passing of the order of grant by the Controller, i.e., when the order under Section 15 is signed and the grant is recorded administratively, not the point when the order is uploaded on the website or the point when the certificate is generated or when the patent is entered in the register. The Court held that once the Controller has signed the order of grant, the applicant acquires statutory rights under the Patents Act, 1970, and the process of uploading or certificate issuance is purely ministerial in nature and has no bearing on the legal effect of the grant.

The case arose from an interesting situation where, after the Controller had signed and allowed Vertex’s patent application, but before the order for grant of patent was actually uploaded on the official website and the certificate was generated, Mr. Velagala Suresh (Respondent no. 3) filed a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court was called upon to determine whether such an opposition, filed during the interval between the Controller’s decision and its publication, could be entertained at all.

The Petitioner, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, had filed the patent application (number 202017044455) before the Delhi Patent Office in respect of an invention relating to the treatment of cystic fibrosis. The application was examined, and after completion of all procedural requirements, the Controller proceeded to grant the patent. The order recorded that all the objections raised against the grant of the subject application were met, no pre-grant opposition had been filed by any person, and that the application was being allowed accordingly. As per the affidavit subsequently filed by the Controller before the Delhi High Court during the proceedings of the writ petition, the order granting the patent was uploaded on the official website of the Indian Patent Office at approximately 5:25 pm on November 28, 2023.

However, as per the electronic records of the Patent Office, Respondent no. 3 submitted a pre-grant opposition at approximately 5:18 pm on the same day, i.e., a few minutes prior to the order was uploaded. On this basis, the Controller issued a notice, on December 8, 2025, to the petitioner, treating the opposition as valid and initiating further proceedings.

In response, Vertex filed a miscellaneous petition before the Controller under Section 80 of the Patents Act, read with Rule 128 and 129 of the Patent Rules, seeking dismissal of the opposition on the ground that the patent had already been granted at the time of filing and, therefore, the opposition was not maintainable. A hearing was conducted following which the Controller passed an order dated April 5, 2024, holding the opposition to be valid and maintainable.

In the said order, the Controller acknowledged that his intention was to grant the patent but a technical/ system limitation had prevented the timely generation of the patent certificate.

Aggrieved, Vertex filed two writ petitions challenging the impugned notice and the order passed in the miscellaneous petition, contending that once the Controller had signed the order granting the patent, the patent stood granted, and the Controller had no authority to entertain a pre-grant opposition.

Vertex argued that patent grant is deemed final as soon as the Controller signs the order allowing the application. The subsequent steps, such as uploading the order online, entering the grant in the register, or generating the certificate, are ministerial acts that merely evidence the fact of grant and do not affect its legal finality. Vertex emphasized that as recorded in the grant order, no opposition was pending at the time of signing the order, and the subsequent filing by Respondent no. 3 was therefore not maintainable. It relied on the Division Bench decisions in Dr. (Miss) Snehlata C. Gupte vs Union of India [2010 SCC OnLine Del 2374], where it was held that the date of the Controller’s decision, not the date of certificate or publication, determines the grant of a patent. It was highlighted that once the order was signed, the Controller became functus officio (i.e., lacking jurisdiction to revisit the matter), and therefore, did not have the authority to either take note of pre-grant opposition or issue the impugned notice to the petitioner.

Thus, the matter raised significant questions regarding the interpretation of the “date of grant” under the Patents Act, 1970, and the consequences of such technical delays.

In its analysis, the Court first noted that the Controller had signed the order granting the patent in favour of the Petitioner on November 28, 2023, and when the Controller appended his signature, there was no pre-grant opposition pending. This fact was not only undisputed but also acknowledged in the subsequent order passed in the miscellaneous petition, which recorded that the opposition was filed only after the order had been passed. The Court emphasized that once the order granting the patent was signed by the Controller, the patent stood granted, and any subsequent acts such as uploading the order on the IPO website or generating the patent certificate were merely ministerial in nature and did not affect the legal status of the grant. Referring to the decision in Dr. Snehlata C. Gupte vs Union of India, the Court opined that the “date of order” of a patent grant is the date on which the Controller passes the order, and not the date of its upload.

The Court recorded that since the pre-grant opposition was filed after the grant order had been signed, the Controller had become functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the opposition or issue any further notice in relation to the application. The Court further observed that the delay in uploading the order or generating the certificate was attributable to systemic issues within the IPO and not to any fault on the part of the Petitioner; therefore, the Petitioner could not be made to suffer adverse consequences due to such delay. It was also held that the IPO ought not to have accepted the pre-grant opposition at all, as doing so contravened the statutory scheme of the Patents Act and amounted to an abuse of process. The Court thus rejected Respondent no. 3’s reliance on Sections 25(1) and 43(1) of the Act, holding that the right to file a pre-grant opposition had already lapsed once the patent stood granted.

In conclusion, the Court quashed the impugned notice and the order passed in the miscellaneous petition.