It is often assumed that a granted patent is the end of the road. In practice, the Indian system keeps an organised, time-bound window to question the grant. The tool for that challenge is Form 7, the Notice of Opposition filed after grant. Applicants, inventors and competitors frequently ask when Form 7 can be used, what goes inside it, and how the procedure unfolds before the Controller. This article explains the essentials with a focus on Indian rules and leading decisions, and highlights practical points that tend to be missed in hurried filings.
What exactly is Form 7 under Indian law?
Form 7 is the statutory Notice of Opposition for a post-grant challenge. The legal architecture is as follows:
Substantive provision: Section 25(2) of the Patents Act, 1970 permits post-grant opposition by a “person interested”.
Form and procedure: The Patents Rules, 2003 prescribe Form 7 and the procedure in Rule 55A and following rules. The official Form 7 bears the heading “Notice of Opposition [See sections 25(3) and rule 55A]”, since Section 25(3) governs the Opposition Board and the Controller’s process.
Two immediate clarifications that reduce confusion:
Form 7A is different. That is for pre-grant opposition under Rule 55, not our subject here.
Only a “person interested” may file Form 7. This generally means a party engaged in, or promoting, research or commercial activity in the field and affected by the patent.
The one-year clock, and what counts as the “date of grant”
When to file: A post-grant opposition must be filed within 12 months from the date of publication of the grant in the Patent Office Journal. This phrasing matters because the journal publication, not the internal signature date or certificate issuance, anchors the window.
Courts have addressed uncertainty around “date of grant” in several matters. Delhi High Court proceedings in the Snehlata Gupte batch clarified that ministerial steps like certificate issuance do not shift the legal effect of the grant for opposition timelines, and practice commentaries now reflect that the operative date is journal publication. Use the journal date when computing the 12-month limit.
Contents of a persuasive Form 7
Think of Form 7 as a pleading with evidence, not just a cover sheet. The official template specifies the basic heads, and good practice adds structure:
Opponent details and locus, showing why you are a “person interested”.
Patent particulars, including application number, patent number, patentee, title, and crucially the date of publication of grant.
Grounds under Section 25(2), pressed specifically and matched to proof. Typical grounds include prior publication anywhere, prior claiming in India, public use in India before priority, lack of inventive step, non-patentable subject matter under Section 3, insufficiency, false or incomplete Section 8 information, and traditional knowledge.
Statement and evidence supporting each ground, with annexures and expert declarations where relevant.
Relief sought, for example revocation or maintenance with amendments.
Verification and signature as directed in the form.
Quick checklist before filing
Verify that you fall within “person interested”.
Calculate the last date from the journal publication of the grant.
File in duplicate with a full evidence set cross-referenced to grounds.
Use the current fee under the First Schedule, noting that fees were revised in March 2024.
Step-by-step procedure after Form 7 is filed
The Rules set out a structured pathway:
Service and Opposition Board
On receiving Form 7, the Controller notifies the patentee and constitutes a three-member Opposition Board to examine the notice, statements and evidence.Patentee’s reply and evidence
The patentee has two months to file a reply statement and evidence. If the patentee remains silent, the proceeding can tilt decisively against the patent.Opponent’s rejoinder evidence
The opponent may file reply evidence within one month, limited to matters in the patentee’s reply. This is not a chance to introduce entirely new grounds without leave.Board’s joint recommendation
The Board provides a reasoned recommendation to the Controller, typically within three months of the record closing.Hearing and final order
The Controller issues hearing notice, hears parties, and passes a speaking order either maintaining, amending, or revoking the patent.
Why the Board’s recommendation must be shared
In Cipla Ltd v Union of India (Supreme Court, 2012), the Court required that the Opposition Board’s recommendation be made available to the parties, so they can address it effectively at the hearing. This principle of natural justice is now standard practice.Embedded FAQ
Is the Board’s view binding?
Can there be a decision without oral hearing?
If the 12-month period is missed, can it be extended?
Can new grounds be added mid-stream?
If the opposition fails, what next for the opponent?
Strategy on grounds and evidence, with jurisprudential anchors
Opponents should align grounds with crisp proof. A few practical angles recur across disputes:
Inventive step
Emphasise the skilled person’s common general knowledge and a reason to combine references. Technical declarations can be decisive when mapping claim features to prior art.Insufficiency
Point out missing teaching that prevents the invention from being performed across the full breadth of the claim.Section 3 filters
For inventions near excluded subject matter, show how the claim falls squarely within Section 3, rather than merely touching its edges.
Courts demand procedural fairness and reasoned decisions in opposition. The Supreme Court’s direction in Cipla on disclosure of the Board’s view has improved hearing quality. Delhi High Court has also reiterated, in post-grant fact patterns, that the Controller’s order must engage with the evidence and give clear reasons. Illustratively, in Pharmacyclics LLC v Union of India (Del HC, 2019), the Court scrutinised a post-grant opposition record in the context of timelines and party submissions, reflecting the judicial expectation of rigour.
Patentee playbook, because defence begins early
If you are on the patentee’s side, a timely, well-evidenced reply within the two-month window is essential. Useful moves include:
Narrow and clarify through permissible amendments to remove obviousness triggers or to fix clarity, without broadening the claim.
Challenge locus if the opponent’s “person interested” status is thin.
Engage with the Board report once circulated, and address each adverse point in hearing written notes.
Common pitfalls that sink otherwise good oppositions
Treating Form 7 as a placeholder. Vague grounds without annexed proof invite rejection. Attach dated prior art, declarations, and translations where needed.
Miscalculating time. Count the 12 months from the journal publication of grant and work backwards to accommodate notarisation, exhibits and pagination.
Over-pleading. Press only grounds you can prove. Weak surplus grounds distract from the strongest attack.
Ignoring Section 8. Incomplete or false information on foreign applications can be a potent ground if supported by documentary gaps.
Fee and format errors. Use the latest First Schedule amounts and ensure duplicate sets, indexing and verification align with the form. Fees were revised in March 2024, so do not rely on old checklists.
Quick comparison, pre-grant versus post-grant, to guide your choice
Who may file
Pre-grant: any person.
Post-grant: person interested only.
When
Pre-grant: after application publication and at least six months thereafter, before grant.
Post-grant: within 12 months from journal publication of grant.
Form
Pre-grant: Form 7A.
Post-grant: Form 7.
Outcome
Pre-grant assists examination and may delay grant.
Post-grant can revoke, amend, or maintain the patent through a speaking order.
Takeaways for applicants, inventors and competitors
Track the Patent Office Journal weekly for newly granted patents in your space, and diarise the 12-month trigger.
Build the record early. Identify the best prior art, commission expert declarations where technical mapping is complex, and prepare translations well in advance.
Anticipate the Board report and the hearing. Written submissions that grapple with each recommendation point tend to persuade. Cipla ensures you will see that report, so plan to use it.
A well-prepared Form 7 can correct examination oversights and prevent weak patents from chilling competition. For patentees, a thoughtful defence, prompt amendments and complete evidence can secure the patent’s core. Either way, success in post-grant opposition depends on disciplined timelines, precise pleadings, and a record that the Controller can rely upon.
