The Bombay High Court, in Ashit Padhya vs Assistent Controller of Patents and Designs, Mumbai [Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 145 of 2025; decision dated July 30, 2026], set aside an order passed by the Controller of Patents in a post-grant opposition proceedings and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after finding a breach of the principles of natural justice arising from reliance on a YouTube video as a prior art document that had not been provided to the Petitioner.

The Controller relied on the said video for the first time while passing the order of revocation. The Court noted that the breach of natural justice caused by non-disclosure of the video had already been acknowledged in the review proceedings. Against this background, the Court found further reliance on additional videos inexplicable and directed that all such videos be placed before the Opposition Board for examination in accordance with the procedure applicable to post-grant opposition proceedings.

The Court directed that any material on which the Controller’s Office proposes to rely must first be furnished to the petitioner and placed before the Opposition Board. The parties, including the Controller, would be permitted to make their submissions on such material, while the Opposition Board would independently consider the material and make its recommendations.

Since the matter had already been considered twice by the same Controller, the Court further directed that, after receipt of the Opposition Board’s recommendations, the proceedings be placed before a different Controller.

The impugned order was accordingly set aside and the matter remanded on the terms specified by the Court.