Section 14 of the Patents Act, 1970
Consideration of report of examiner by Controller
Requires the Controller to tell the applicant the gist of adverse objections and to give a hearing before deciding against the application.
Official legal text
The verbatim statutory text of this provision is reproduced from the official source and checked by our legal reviewer before it is published here. Until that check is complete for this page, read the exact wording directly from the official source linked below — it is the only version that governs.
This explanation is written for clarity, not for citation. The official statutory text and any Gazette notification in force on your date govern, and they prevail over anything said here.
What this section says, in plain language
Section 14 turns the examiner's report into a fair process. It applies where the report is adverse to the applicant, or where it requires any amendment of the application, the specification or the drawings for the application to be accepted. In those situations the Controller must communicate the gist of the objections to the applicant before doing anything else, and must give the applicant an opportunity of being heard if the applicant so requests within the prescribed period.
The principle behind it is the ordinary rule of natural justice: nobody should be condemned unheard. The Controller exercises quasi-judicial functions, and refusing an application is a decision that affects rights. Rule 129 reinforces this by providing that the Controller shall not exercise any discretionary power adversely to a party without giving that party a hearing, after giving notice. Rule 28A prescribes the procedure for considering the examiner's report under Section 14.
In practice the communication takes the form of the first examination report, and any further statements of objections issued afterwards. Once received, the applicant responds with amendments, arguments and evidence within the period allowed. If objections remain outstanding, the Controller normally issues a hearing notice setting out the surviving objections and fixing a date. Hearings are commonly conducted by video conference, and written submissions are filed after the hearing within the period the Controller allows.
The hearing is a real opportunity rather than a formality. Applicants regularly succeed at hearings by narrowing claims to a clearly allowable position, by explaining the technical effect that answers a Section 3 objection, or by demonstrating that a cited document does not disclose an essential feature. It is also the last controlled point before refusal, so the submission filed at that stage should be complete. Rule 129A allows an adjournment of a hearing in defined circumstances, on a request made in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time.
Two limits are worth knowing. First, the right to a hearing has to be exercised. If the applicant does not request one within the prescribed period, the Controller can proceed to decide on the record. Second, a hearing does not extend the underlying deadline for putting the application in order for grant under Section 21. The two run separately, and applicants who confuse them can find the substantive clock has run out while they were waiting for a hearing date.
Why this section matters
Every applicant whose application has attracted objections, and their agent or attorney.
After the examination report is issued and before any refusal or requirement of amendment is finalised.
A right to be told the gist of the objections and a right to be heard before an adverse decision.
The Controller may decide on the record, and the applicant loses the best opportunity to save the application.
How it works in practice
A hearing that saved a narrowed claim
Sarvin Life Sciences receives a first examination report objecting that its claims to a diagnostic device lack inventive step over two cited documents and that one claim is a method of diagnosis excluded under Section 3(i). The company files a written response arguing both points, but the Controller is not persuaded and issues a hearing notice listing the surviving objections and fixing a video conference date. At the hearing, the company's agent concedes the excluded method claim and deletes it, then focuses on a single structural feature, a microfluidic channel geometry, that neither cited document discloses and that the description supports with test data. The Controller asks for the comparative data to be filed as a written submission after the hearing. The company files it within the period allowed, along with a clean set of amended claims limited to the channel geometry. The application proceeds to grant on the narrowed claims. Had the company skipped the hearing, the objections would have been decided on the earlier record.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- Section 14 applies where the examiner's report is adverse or requires amendment.
- The Controller must communicate the gist of the objections to the applicant.
- The applicant is entitled to a hearing if requested within the prescribed period.
- Rule 129 bars the Controller from exercising discretion adversely without a hearing after notice.
- Hearings are often held by video conference, with written submissions filed afterwards within the period allowed.
- A hearing does not by itself extend the Section 21 deadline for putting the application in order.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Assuming a hearing will be offered automatically. In practice the applicant must request it within the prescribed period.
- Treating the hearing as a formality and arriving without a fallback claim set.
- Waiting for a hearing date while the deadline to put the application in order runs down.
- Raising entirely new arguments in post-hearing submissions that were never put to the Controller at the hearing.
Connected provisions
You will find the related rules grouped below rather than inside the explanation. The separation is deliberate. The Act and the Rules are distinct legal instruments, and mixing them can lead a reader to attribute a procedural requirement to the statute itself.
Forms, deadlines and fees
- A request for a hearing must be made within the period prescribed by the Rules after the objections are communicated; check the current Rules for the exact period.
- Written submissions after a hearing must be filed within the period the Controller allows.
Open the deadline calculator — and have every date confirmed against the current Rules before you rely on it.
We do not publish fee amounts. The First Schedule sets them, and they differ by category of applicant, such as a natural person, a startup, a small entity or another applicant, and by the mode of filing. Check the Schedule currently in force before you calculate anything. How Indian patent fees work.
Amendment history
What changed in this provision, newest first. Read the footnotes in the official consolidated text for the full record.
- 2005The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005The section was replaced as part of the new examination scheme, setting out what the Controller does with an adverse examination report and the applicant's opportunity to respond.
Compiled from official consolidated texts and Gazette notifications. See the site-wide change log.
Related judgments
You will not find case summaries under this heading today. Each one must pass a legal review before it appears, and that work has not been completed for this provision. If you are researching decided cases, use a law report or a court database in the meantime. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Section 14
Do I get a hearing before my patent application is refused in India?
Yes, if you ask for one within the prescribed period. Section 14 requires the Controller to communicate the gist of the objections and to give an opportunity of being heard where the applicant so requests. Rule 129 separately bars the Controller from exercising any discretionary power adversely to a party without giving that party a hearing after due notice. The right is real and regularly used, but it is not automatic in the sense that you can ignore the procedural steps for claiming it.
How is a patent hearing conducted in India?
The Controller issues a hearing notice listing the objections that remain outstanding and fixing a date. Hearings are commonly conducted by video conference, and the applicant or their authorised agent attends and makes oral submissions. The Controller may indicate what would be allowable. After the hearing, the applicant files written submissions and any amended claims within the period allowed. The Controller then issues a decision, which may be a grant, a refusal, or a requirement that the application be amended.
Can I amend my claims at the hearing stage?
Yes. Amendments are frequently made at and immediately after a hearing, and this is often what makes a grant possible. The amendments must comply with Sections 57 and 59, which means they must be by way of disclaimer, correction or explanation, must not introduce matter not disclosed in substance in the original specification, and must fall wholly within the scope of the claims as they stood before amendment. Preparing a fallback claim set in advance of the hearing is standard practice.
What happens if I do not attend the patent hearing?
The Controller can proceed on the material already on record and decide the application, which in a contested case usually means refusal under Section 15. Rule 129A allows a request for adjournment in defined circumstances if made in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, so a genuine scheduling problem should be raised formally rather than by simply not appearing. If an application is refused, the remedy is an appeal to the High Court under Section 117A.
Facing a Controller's hearing on your application?
MYCrave Consultancy prepares hearing strategy, fallback claims and post-hearing submissions for Indian applications.
You will be speaking with MYCrave Consultancy & Services, the firm that operates this platform. General questions are answered free; matter‑specific work is quoted before anything is done.