Section 27 of the Patents Act, 1970
Refusal of patent without opposition
An omitted provision that once let the Controller refuse a patent for anticipation even where nobody had filed an opposition.
Official legal text
Indian drafting practice deletes a provision by omitting it, not by closing the gap. Renumbering would break thousands of existing citations, so the number is retained with a note. Records made while the provision was in force still cite it, which is the main reason this page exists.
The authority is the enacted text, not this page. Where our wording and the official provision, or an applicable Gazette notification, do not match, the official material prevails.
What this section says, in plain language
Under the original scheme, opposition was the main way that prior art reached the Controller after a specification had been accepted. That left an obvious gap. If the Controller became satisfied that the invention had already been published or already claimed, but no opponent had come forward, could the patent still be refused? This provision answered yes. It allowed the Controller to refuse to grant the patent on the ground of anticipation, without waiting for anyone to oppose, after giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard.
The provision was omitted by the Patents (Amendment) Act 2005, when the acceptance and opposition scheme was restructured. Its work is now spread across the modern provisions. The examiner searches for anticipation by previous publication and by prior claim and reports on it, the Controller considers that report, and the Controller has express power to refuse an application or require it to be amended. There is also a separate provision dealing specifically with the Controller's powers in cases of anticipation. The result is that the Controller's ability to refuse an anticipated application no longer depends on an opponent appearing; it is built into examination itself.
Why this section matters
Readers of pre-2005 Indian patent decisions, and anyone comparing the old and current examination schemes.
Only historically; refusal for anticipation today happens through the examination provisions.
Nothing today. It formerly created a standalone power to refuse for anticipation absent opposition.
The mistaken belief that a patent could once be granted simply because nobody objected.
How it works in practice
No opponent, and still no patent
A researcher comparing decisions from the 1980s with modern ones noticed something that looked strange at first. In an old matter the Controller had refused an application for a mechanical coupling on the ground that it was anticipated by an earlier Indian specification, even though the file showed no notice of opposition from anyone. She checked the current Act and could not find the provision that had been relied on, because it has been omitted. The old provision had allowed exactly that: refusal for anticipation on the Controller's own view, after hearing the applicant, without any opponent. In a modern file the same outcome is reached differently. The examiner's search report raises the earlier specification, the Controller considers the report, and the application is refused or required to be amended under the examination provisions. Same result, different route, and no opponent needed in either era.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- The provision allowed refusal for anticipation even where no opposition had been filed, after hearing the applicant.
- It was omitted by the Patents (Amendment) Act 2005 when the examination and opposition scheme was restructured.
- Today the search, examination and refusal provisions give the Controller the same ability without needing an opponent.
Connected provisions
The rules connected to a section are listed on their own because they are subordinate legislation. They cannot go beyond the Act, but they can be changed by notification without a new statute, so seeing them separately makes it easier to check whether the current procedure is still what you remember.
Forms, deadlines and fees
Any official fee connected with this provision is fixed by the First Schedule to the Patents Rules, not by the provision itself. The amount depends on who the applicant is and on whether the filing is made online or on paper, so no figures are reproduced here. 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 omitted along with the rest of the acceptance machinery. Refusal is now dealt with under the examination and opposition provisions.
Compiled from official consolidated texts and Gazette notifications. See the site-wide change log.
Related judgments
This part of the page is reserved for summaries of decided cases. They are added one at a time, after review by a person qualified to confirm that the summary matches the judgment. Nothing has been cleared for this provision so far, so there is nothing to show. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Section 27
Can a patent be refused in India if nobody opposes it?
Yes. Opposition is an additional check, not the only one. The examiner searches for anticipation by previous publication and by prior claim, reports on patentability, and the Controller considers that report. The Controller has express power to refuse an application or to require it to be amended, and separate powers where anticipation is found. Most refusals in India happen through examination, with no opponent involved at any stage.
Why was this provision removed?
Because it belonged to the old acceptance and opposition scheme that was replaced in the early 2000s. In that scheme, opposition followed acceptance, and a standalone power was needed for cases where no opponent appeared. The restructured Act puts examination at the centre, with publication, request for examination, pre-grant representations, grant and post-grant opposition. The Controller's power to refuse an anticipated application now sits inside the examination provisions.
Facing an anticipation objection from the Controller?
MYCrave Consultancy analyses cited prior art and prepares responses and amendments that keep applications alive.
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.