Bombay High Court Sets Aside Revocation Of SAATHI's Patent For Natural Fibre Absorbent Article

The Bombay High Court has recently set aside an order revoking a patent granted to SAATHI Inc. for an absorbent article made from natural fibres.

The court held that the Controller of Patents revoked the patent without giving reasons, departed from the Opposition Board's recommendation without explaining why, and failed to decide whether the opponent was entitled to maintain the post-grant opposition.

Justice Arif S. Doctor delivered the judgment on June 15, 2026.

The challenge arose from a July 17, 2025 order in which the Controller allowed a post-grant opposition and revoked SAATHI's patent titled "Absorbent Article Having Natural Fibers."

The Opposition Board had recommended that the opposition be rejected. The Controller nevertheless revoked the patent.

SAATHI challenged the revocation on four grounds. It argued that the order contained no independent reasoning. It also contended that the Controller failed to explain why the Opposition Board's recommendation had been rejected. According to SAATHI, the Controller also failed to decide whether the opponent qualified as a "person interested" entitled to maintain the post-grant opposition. The company further argued that the opponent had not filed an affidavit of evidence in support of the opposition.

After examining the impugned order, the court held that it disclosed no independent reasoning for the conclusions reached.

"Beyond recording conclusions, the Impugned Order discloses no independent reasoning to support the finding that the Patent was liable to be revoked," the court observed.

The court also found that although the Controller was not bound by the Opposition Board's recommendation, any departure from it required an explanation. It noted that the Patents Rules require the Controller to decide the opposition after considering the Board's recommendation.

"To hold otherwise would effectively mean that the Controller can simply ignore the recommendations of the Opposition Board, which would really defeat the very objective of the provision for the constitution of an Opposition Board and also render the requirement of consideration under Rule 62(5) largely otiose," the court held.

The court further noted that the impugned order itself described the Opposition Board's recommendation as important. Even so, the Controller allowed the opposition despite the Board having recommended that it be rejected.

"To my mind, such contradictions in the Impugned Order, on the face of the record, reflect a complete non-application of mind on the part of Respondent No. 1, which is sufficient to vitiate the Impugned Order," the court observed.

The court also found merit in SAATHI's contention that the opponent had not filed an affidavit of evidence. It noted that the record reflected that the opponent had merely annexed documents to the opposition. Those documents, by themselves, would not qualify as evidence under Section 79 of the Patents Act.

The court also found that the Controller had failed to decide SAATHI's objection that the opponent had not established it was a "person interested" entitled to institute the post-grant opposition. According to the court, that issue went to the very maintainability of the opposition. It ought to have been decided at the threshold.

Allowing the petition, the court set aside the order revoking SAATHI's patent.