The Delhi High Court has set aside two Patent Office refusals and sent the applications back for a fresh decision. In Philip Morris Products v. Assistant Controller of Patents (9 September 2026), the court found the Controller had relied on material not disclosed to the applicant and had misassessed the prior art, and held that a product being nicotine-related does not by itself make it 'seriously prejudicial to health' under Section 3(b). In Glisten LLC v. Assistant Controller (1 October 2026), the refusal of a gemstone-coating application (IN 202017005875) was set aside because the inventive-step objection raised at the hearing covered only claim 18, which the applicant had already withdrawn. Both rulings reinforce that applicants must get a fair chance to answer every objection before a patent is refused.
| Who is affected | Patent applicants facing an examination report, a hearing or a refusal order, and anyone considering an appeal against a refusal. |
|---|---|
| What to do | Read every objection in the examination report and hearing notice carefully, answer each one in writing, and keep a record of amended or withdrawn claims. If an application is refused on grounds you were never given a chance to answer, an appeal to the High Court under Section 117A may be available, so get advice quickly. |
| Source | Delhi High Court orders (reported in SpicyIP Weekly Review) |
This is a plain-language summary for general information, not legal or tax advice. The court order or official document is the authoritative text. Ask an expert how it applies to you.