India’s patent opposition system plays a crucial role in maintaining patent quality and protecting public interest. The Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter “Act”) allows challenges to patent applications at two stages. Under Section 25(1) of the Act, any person may file a pre-grant opposition after publication but before grant. Under Section 25(2), a post-grant opposition can only be filed by a “person interested” (as defined under Section 2(1)(t) of the Act) within one year from the publication of grant. This dual model of pre-grant and post-grant opposition gives India a robust validity-screening mechanism.
At its core, the opposition system serves two legitimate purposes. First, it allows third parties to bring relevant prior art and technical objections to the attention of the Patent Office, thereby improving patent quality. Second, it protects competition and access by preventing weak or overbroad patents from becoming enforceable rights. However, opposition proceedings in India are now often associated with prolonged delays, repetitive filings, and procedural uncertainty. This has led to growing concern among innovator companies, competitors, and policymakers alike.
Why reform is necessary
The urgency of reform is clear from official data. The annual report 2024-25 published by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) shows that pre-grant and post-grant oppositions are no longer rare events. According to the said report, IPO received 239 pre-grant oppositions and disposed of 711 pre-grant oppositions during the year 2024-25. Further, a total of 101 post-grant oppositions were filed in the year 2024-25 and 44 post-grant oppositions were disposed during the year. In commercially important areas such as pharmaceuticals and chemicals, opposition has become part of routine patent strategy.
The Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024 introduce measures to reduce delays in opposition proceedings. For instance, in pre-grant oppositions, Rule 55(3) now requires a prima facie assessment by the Controller to filter out frivolous oppositions, and the applicant’s reply period has been cut from three months to two under Rule 55(4). For post-grant oppositions, timelines for constituting the Opposition Board have been shortened. However, procedural changes alone may not be enough to address deeper, systemic delays.
Judicial assessment of abuse in pre-grant oppositions
In practice, Controllers have often continued to issue notices in pre-grant oppositions mechanically, without recording clear reasons for satisfaction of the prima facie standard, undermining the intent of the 2024 reforms. Courts have begun criticising this approach. In Merck v. Controller of Patents, concerning Merck’s Acalabrutinib application (408/CHENP/2014), the Madras High Court (February 12, 2026) criticised the Patent Office for issuing notices in successive pre-grant oppositions without meaningful scrutiny, allowing the patent term to be eroded through procedural delay.
The Court stated that all pending oppositions be heard together within a fixed timeline and any new pre-grant opposition shall only be entertained if it genuinely raises new grounds and satisfy the prima facie test. The ruling reinforces that opposition must be a disciplined process, not a tool for obstruction. This application has remained pending for nearly 12 years due to the filing of repeated and frivolous pre-grant oppositions. In yet another case, application No. 201717025098 was opposed through multiple pre-grant oppositions; although all opposition proceedings, including hearings, were concluded in 2024, the matter continues to remain pending before the Indian Patent Office, despite nearly nine years having elapsed since filing. These instances collectively highlight systemic delays caused by repetitive pre-grant oppositions.
Another overlooked issue is misuse of the fee structure. Lower fees for natural persons incentivise proxy or benami pre-grant oppositions by individuals lacking any real stake in the invention. Such fee arbitrage not only distorts the process but also results in revenue loss to the government and wastes limited administrative resources of the Patent Office.
Conclusion
Opposition proceedings profoundly shape innovation outcomes. In sectors like pharmaceuticals, prolonged pre-grant and post-grant oppositions can erode the effective patent term, rendering grants commercially meaningless.
India need not dilute its robust opposition framework, which is justified by public-interest considerations. What is required is clear and time-bound windows for pre-grant opposition, meaningful prima facie screening through reasoned orders, filtering of repetitive filings, and strict timelines. The real choice is not between robust opposition and innovation, but between a system that allows uncertainty and delay to undermine patent rights and one that functions as a transparent, predictable, and time-bound mechanism, capable of protecting both genuine innovation and the public interest.
Lakshmikumaran is Executive Director and Practice Head, IPR division, and Pandey is Principal Associate, Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan Attorney
Published on April 26, 2026