Rule 28A of the Patents Rules, 2003
Procedure in relation to consideration of report of examiner under section 14
Applies the same hearing procedure to the Controller's consideration of an examiner's report, so no application is refused without a hearing.
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
When the examiner reports on an application, the Controller has to consider that report and decide what to do. The Act says the Controller must give the applicant an opportunity to be heard before refusing the application or requiring amendments. Rule 28A makes that promise workable by applying the procedure already set out for anticipation cases to this wider situation.
The effect is that a single, familiar set of steps governs adverse outcomes at examination. The objection is communicated to the applicant. The applicant replies in writing, usually with amended claims and arguments. If objections survive, a hearing is fixed with advance notice, the applicant or the agent attends, and written submissions are filed within the short period the Rules allow after the hearing. Only then can the Controller decide.
This is natural justice in practical form. Examination is not a paper contest decided in private. Many objections turn on how a skilled reader would understand a technical document, and a short discussion often resolves what several rounds of writing would not. Hearings before the Controller are now routinely conducted by video conference, which has made them accessible to applicants outside the four patent office cities.
The applicant carries responsibility for the timing. The hearing must happen and the submissions must be filed inside the period allowed for putting the application in order for grant, including any extension properly obtained. An applicant who files the reply on the last available day may find there is no room left for a hearing. Adjournments are possible but limited in number and length, and a request has to be made in advance with reasons.
The practical lesson for applicants is to treat the hearing as the real opportunity, not an afterthought. Prepare a short, focused presentation of why the amended claims differ from the cited documents, bring any data, and be ready to offer a narrower fallback claim set if the primary position is not accepted.
Why this rule matters
Every applicant facing objections in a first examination report, and agents appearing before the Controller.
After the written reply to the examination report, when objections remain outstanding.
A procedural right to a hearing and to file written submissions before the Controller decides adversely.
The applicant loses the only face-to-face chance to explain the invention, and a refusal is decided on an incomplete record.
How it works in practice
A hearing saves an IIT Kanpur application
A research group at IIT Kanpur applies for a patent on a catalyst coating for hydrogen sensors. The examination report objects that the coating is obvious over two earlier documents, one on the catalyst and one on the sensor. The institute's patent cell replies in the fourth month, amending the claims to specify the layer thickness range and the deposition sequence, and explaining why combining the documents would not produce a working sensor. The Controller is not satisfied on paper and fixes a hearing by video conference. At the hearing the lead researcher explains, with test results, that below the claimed thickness the coating cracks under thermal cycling, a problem neither document addresses or solves. Written submissions summarising the point are filed within the period allowed. The Controller accepts the amended claims and the patent is granted. Because the reply was filed in month four rather than month six, there was time for the hearing to be held inside the statutory window.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- The Controller must hear the applicant before refusing an application or requiring amendments.
- The rule imports the established anticipation procedure into the consideration of the examiner's report.
- The sequence is: objection communicated, written reply, hearing on notice, written submissions, decision.
- Hearings are commonly held by video conference.
- The hearing and submissions must fall inside the period for putting the application in order for grant.
- Adjournments are limited and must be requested in advance with reasons.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Assuming the hearing is a formality. It is often the point at which the case is actually won or lost.
- Filing the written reply so late that no hearing can be arranged within the statutory window.
- Sending someone to the hearing who cannot explain the technology, when the objection turns on a technical difference.
- Failing to file the post-hearing written submissions within the short period allowed, leaving the Controller without the agreed record.
Connected provisions
The Patents Rules supply procedure and the Patents Act supplies power. This page covers the procedure, and the sections that give the Controller or the applicant the underlying right or duty are grouped separately so you can move between the two.
Forms, deadlines and fees
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) Rules, 2005The rule was inserted, setting out how the Controller proceeds on the examiner's report under section 14 and how the applicant is heard.
Compiled from official consolidated texts and Gazette notifications. See the site-wide change log.
Related judgments
Case summaries are published only after a qualified reviewer has checked the judgment, the citation and the way the holding is described. Nothing has cleared that review for this provision yet, so nothing is listed here. We would rather show no case note than one that misstates what a court decided. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Rule 28A
Do I have to attend the hearing personally?
No. A registered patent agent or an advocate entitled to appear can attend on your behalf, and in most cases that is what happens. It is usually valuable for a technical person from the applicant's side to join as well, because objections on inventive step often turn on facts about how the invention behaves. Hearings are commonly conducted by video conference, so participation from any city is straightforward and travel is rarely required.
Can I ask for the hearing to be postponed?
You can request an adjournment, but the Rules limit both the number of adjournments and the length of each, and a request must be made in advance with reasons. Adjournments cannot be used to push the matter beyond the period for putting the application in order for grant, because that period is not extended by the hearing process. If the date is genuinely impossible, apply early and explain why rather than waiting for the day itself.
What should I file after the hearing?
File written submissions setting out the points argued, together with any amended claims agreed or offered at the hearing and any data referred to. Keep it short and tied to the objections. The Rules allow only a brief period after the hearing for this, so prepare the draft before the hearing and finalise it immediately afterwards. Confirm the current period in the Rules, because the decision may be taken as soon as it expires.
Can the Controller refuse without any hearing at all?
Not where the Act requires an opportunity to be heard. The applicant must be told the objections and given the chance to be heard before an adverse decision. What the applicant cannot do is create an unlimited right to be heard by ignoring the timetable. If the reply period expires without compliance, the application is deemed abandoned, and that is a lapse rather than a refusal, so the hearing right never arises.
Facing a hearing before the Controller?
MYCrave Consultancy prepares the technical case, argues the hearing and files the written submissions on time.
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.