Stating that Section 60 is a self-contained code in the matter of prescribing the period for making an application for restoration with reasons and circumstances which led to the failure to pay the renewal fee and as such the Controller has no power to enlarge the period the Controller held the restoration application as ‘time barred’. The decision of the Controller, dated 8-2-2016, was given at a hearing which was conducted pursuant to the order of Delhi High Court in a writ petition by which the petitioner (Sanat Products) questioned the restoration permitted by the then Controller. The patentee had only stated that it had ‘inadvertently’ missed making payment of renewal fee.

The patentee also requested that the Controller could use his powers under Section 81of the Patents Act, to condone the delay. However, the Controller held that he did not have powers to condone such delay and as such since the patent had lapsed due to non-renewal and restoration application was not made within the stipulated period of 18 months, the patent had been wrongly restored.