Lenient Approach to Restore the Patents

House no. 316, Ground Floor "A" Sector, Yelahanka New Town Bengaluru- 560 064

1203, The Spire-2, Shital Park BRTS, 150 Feet Ring Road,Rajkot - 360007 Phone : +91 281 242 731

203, 2nd Floor, Shriji Palace,Savsar Plot, Main Road, Morbi-363641 INDIA Phone:91 2822225263

312-313, 3rd Floor,
Abhishek Complex, Akshar Chowk, Old Padra Road,
Vadodara 390 020 INDIA
Phone: (0265) 2322015

The two separate but similar content appeals were filed by SPV Laboratories Private Limited for restoration of two patents that had lapsed due to the failure to pay renewal fees within the prescribed time limits and the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs had refused to restore the lapsed patents. Summary of Facts:

• 1. Patent No. 403793:
• Granted on 18th August 2022, the appellant failed to pay the renewal fee by 18th November 2022 due to an exigency in the family of the attorney.
• The appellant filed for restoration within the permissible 18-month period (9th July 2023) from the date the patent ceased.
• Despite this, the Assistant Controller refused restoration, citing insufficient evidence to support the family emergency claim and failure to meet the legal requirements under Section 60(3) of the Patents Act and Rule 84(3) of the Patents Rules.


• 2. Patent No. 404239:
• Granted on 23rd August 2022, the appellant failed to pay the renewal fee by the prescribed deadline (23rd November 2022) and also missed the extended deadline of 23rd May 2023.
• The restoration application was filed within the permissible period under Section 60 of the Patents Act, but the Assistant Controller similarly rejected the application on the grounds of insufficient evidence for the family emergency and failure to fulfill the requirements under the Act and Rules.

Legal Analysis: In both cases, the appellant’s inability to pay renewal fees was due to unavoidable personal circumstances. The appellants argued that the failure to meet the renewal deadlines was not intentional and the restoration applications were filed within the required timeframes as per section 60 of the Patent act. The Assistant Controller’s decisions were based on insufficient evidence for the emergency claim and procedural non-compliance. Furthermore, in the case of Patent No. 404239, the intimation regarding the renewal fee was sent to an old agent rather than the current agent, which complicated the case more.

Court's Findings: The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, after considering the facts and legal submissions allow the appeals and took a liberal approach in both the cases based on the following reasons:

• 1. The appellant had shown diligence in pursuing the patent application, as evidenced by timely filings Form 27.
• 2. The failure to pay the renewal fees was deemed a procedural lapse rather than an intentional act of abandonment. The family emergency, although not fully substantiated with concrete evidence, was accepted as a reasonable explanation for the delay.
• 3. The restoration application was filed within the permissible 18-month period, indicating the appellant's intent not to abandon the patent.
• 4. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court emphasized that the Assistant Controller should have taken a more lenient approach, especially in light of the appellant's clear intention to restore the patents.

Conclusion: The judgment underscores the liberal approach in patent restoration matters, where the procedural lapses are not viewed too harshly, if the intent to maintain the patent is clear and the delay is reasonably explained.