Rule 139 of the Patents Rules, 2003
Hearing before the Controller to be in public in certain cases
Rule 139 makes hearings before the Controller in the specified proceedings open to the public, unless a party asks and the Controller directs otherwise.
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 is a simplified explanation. Where it differs from the official text of the provision, or from an applicable Gazette notification, the official text and the notification prevail.
What this rule requires, step by step
The Controller decides matters that affect people who are not in the room. A patent granted after an opposition binds every manufacturer in the field. A compulsory licence refused or allowed affects patients, farmers or downstream producers. Rule 139 reflects that reality by providing that hearings in the proceedings it covers are held in public, unless the Controller, on the application of a party to the proceeding, directs otherwise.
Openness here means what it means in a courtroom. The proceeding is not conducted privately between the Office and one party; it can be observed. Students, journalists, industry bodies and competitors may follow contested matters. The discipline this creates is the point: submissions made in public are made more carefully, and a decision reached in the open is easier to accept and easier to review.
The exception is deliberately narrow. It is triggered by an application from a party, not by the Controller's preference and not by a party's dislike of publicity, and the Controller must be persuaded to direct otherwise. The usual reason is genuinely confidential commercial material: manufacturing costs, pricing, capacity or customer data that may surface in a compulsory licence proceeding, or trade secret information in evidence. Even then the practical answer is often to restrict access to that part of the hearing rather than close the whole matter.
Rule 139 sits alongside the other hearing provisions. Section 80 requires that a person be given an opportunity of being heard before the Controller exercises a discretion against them. Rule 129 carries that into practice by requiring notice of the hearing, and Rule 129A allows hearings to be conducted through video conferencing or audio-visual means, which is now the ordinary mode for most matters. Video hearings and public hearings are not in conflict: openness is achieved by the Controller permitting access to the hearing rather than by everyone gathering in one room. Ordinary ex parte hearings on an applicant's own file, such as a hearing on objections raised in an examination report before the application is public, are a different situation and are not conducted as public events.
Why this rule matters
Parties to contested proceedings before the Controller, and the wider public affected by the outcome, including industry, researchers and civil society.
At the hearing stage of oppositions, compulsory licence applications and other contested matters.
A default of open hearings, with a narrow, party-initiated route to a direction otherwise.
A party that assumes privacy may place confidential commercial data on the record in an open hearing without first asking for protection.
How it works in practice
Confidential costs data in an open compulsory licence hearing
An application for a compulsory licence over a patented water-purification membrane is heard by the Controller. The applicant, a Nagpur manufacturer, argues that the patented product is priced beyond the reach of rural utilities. The patentee wants to answer that by showing its actual landed cost, its import volumes and the discount structure it offers state boards. It is content for the hearing to be open, because the public interest arguments are the heart of the case, but it does not want its supplier pricing repeated in a room that includes two competitors and a trade journalist. Its counsel therefore applies in advance, identifying the specific documents and the part of the argument concerned, and asks the Controller to direct that this narrow portion be dealt with in restricted session. The rest of the hearing proceeds in public. The patentee is able to make its full case on cost without publishing its supplier terms to the industry, and the open character of the proceeding is preserved for everything that genuinely belongs in the open.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- Public hearing is the default in the proceedings Rule 139 covers.
- Only a party to the proceeding can apply for a direction that the hearing not be public.
- The Controller decides; a party cannot close a hearing by asserting confidentiality.
- Requests are usually best made in advance and confined to specific confidential material.
- Rule 129 governs notice of hearings and Rule 129A allows hearings by video conferencing.
- Ex parte hearings on a party's own pending application are a different situation from contested public hearings.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Assuming everything said before the Controller is confidential. In the covered proceedings the default runs the other way.
- Raising confidentiality for the first time at the hearing, when the material is about to be discussed.
- Asking for the entire proceeding to be closed when only a few documents are sensitive. A narrow request is far more likely to succeed.
- Thinking a video hearing is automatically private. The mode of hearing does not change whether it is open.
Connected provisions
The link between a rule and its section matters in practice, because an argument about whether a procedure is valid usually starts with the parent provision. The connected sections are listed here, apart from the explanation, so the chain of authority is easy to follow.
Forms, deadlines and fees
- Rule 139 sets no period, but any application to have a hearing dealt with otherwise than in public should be made before the hearing, not during it.
Open the deadline calculator — and have every date confirmed against the current Rules before you rely on it.
The official fee for anything described on this page is set out in the First Schedule to the Patents Rules. It is not the same for every applicant, and it is not the same for online and physical filing, which is why no amount is stated here. How Indian patent fees work.
Related judgments
Court decisions shape how this provision is applied, but a summary is useful only if it is right. Every case note on this site is read by a legal reviewer before it goes live, and none has been completed for this provision so far. This section will fill in as those reviews finish. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Rule 139
Are patent hearings in India open to the public?
In the proceedings Rule 139 covers, yes, that is the starting position. Hearings before the Controller in those matters are held in public unless a party applies and the Controller directs otherwise. The reasoning is the same as for open courts: decisions on oppositions and compulsory licences affect people beyond the parties, and openness improves the quality and acceptability of those decisions. Routine ex parte interactions on a pending application before it becomes public are not run as public events.
Can I keep confidential business information out of an open hearing?
You can ask. Apply to the Controller before the hearing, identify precisely which documents or which part of the argument contains confidential commercial information, and explain the harm publication would cause. Requests limited to specific material succeed more often than requests to close an entire proceeding, because the Controller is balancing genuine commercial confidentiality against the public character of the process. Plan the evidence with this in mind, and avoid putting sensitive figures into documents that will be discussed openly if the point can be made another way.
Does a video conference hearing change the public hearing rule?
No. Rule 129A allows hearings to be held through video conferencing or other audio-visual means, and that is now the ordinary mode for most matters before the Controller. It changes where people sit, not whether a hearing is open. Where a proceeding is one that Rule 139 makes public, openness is achieved by the Controller permitting access to the session. A party who wants part of a video hearing treated differently must still apply for a direction in the same way as for an in-person hearing.
Preparing for a hearing before the Controller?
MYCrave Consultancy prepares parties for contested hearings, including applications to protect genuinely confidential commercial material.
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.