Orissa High Court Allows Application For Patent Restoration As Expiry Was Within Covid-19 Period

The Orissa High Court on 12 February, allowed a writ petition filed by Green Energy Resources, a Sambalpur-based firm, permitting it to apply for the restoration of a patent that had ceased to have effect due to the non-payment of renewal fees.

Justice B.P. Routray observed that the company's explanation for the lapse was convincing and noted that the patent's expiry occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court remarked that under the given facts, there was “no difficulty... for considering the application of the Petitioner for restoration of the Patent by the Controller”.

Green Energy Resources filed the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking restoration of its patent for a “Novel Method For Detoxification Of Spent Potlining.” The company stated that the patent lapsed in September 2021 solely because its authorized agent negligently failed to deposit the mandatory renewal fees.

It claimed that it remained under the false impression that the fees were being paid and discovered the lapse only in June 2024, after the statutory 18-month window for online restoration had closed. The firm further explained that the initial lapse occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, which hindered its ability to physically verify the patent's status at the Patent Office.

The Court found the company's explanation regarding the agent's fault to be credible. Referring to precedents from the Delhi High Court, it noted that a patent agent's mistake is akin to that of an advocate, and it is a “settled legal position that the litigant ought not to suffer for any mistake committed by the concerned Advocates.”

The Court also observed that since the patent's expiry fell within the pandemic period, the company was entitled to the benefit of the Supreme Court's general extension of limitation periods.

Therefore, it directed that Green Energy Resources be “permitted to make his application for restoration within a period of thirty days” from the date of the order. The Bench further instructed the Controller to consider and decide the restoration application in accordance with law within two months of its submission.

Accordingly, the Court granted the firm an opportunity to rectify the procedural lapse.