Email Service Of Patent Examination Report Valid, Postal Service Not Mandatory: Calcutta High Court

In an order passed on January 19, 2026, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur dismissed a writ petition challenging the abandonment of a patent application titled “Herbal Anti-Venom against Catfish Sting,” holding that the Patents Act and Rules permit electronic service of documents and that the applicant had failed to respond to the FER within the prescribed statutory timelines.

The court observed that, “The recognition of email service as proper service enables the Patent Office to utilize email exclusively for efficiency obviating the need for postal service unless otherwise necessary. This approach also finds support from the Information Technology Act, 2000 which accords electronic records the same status as physical documents.”

The case arose from the rejection of a patent application filed in January 2020 by Dulal Kumar De along with two co-inventors. The invention was published in February 2020, and the FER was issued by the Patent Office in July 2022 and sent to the registered email address provided by the applicant. The deadline for filing a response expired in January 2023, with the extended period lapsing in April 2023.

The patent applicant approached the High Court after the Patent Office treated the application as deemed abandoned. It was argued that the FER had not been lawfully served because no communication was sent by registered post. According to the applicant, the statutory time period could be triggered only upon postal service and not by email.

The Union of India and other authorities opposed the challenge, arguing that the FER was duly served at the registered email address given by the applicant and that service by email was a recognized and legally valid mode under the Patents Rules. It was submitted that the applicant had failed to comply with mandatory timelines under the Act.

Examining the statutory framework, the Court noted that Section 149 of the Patents Act uses the word “may” in relation to service by post, indicating a permissive and not mandatory requirement.

“Rule-making power makes it clear that there is no exclusivity attached to any single mode of service and the authorities are free to prescribe additional or alternative means,” the Court said.

The Court further observed that the Patents Rules, 2003, as amended in 2016, explicitly recognize service by email as valid. It noted that the Patent Office had formally adopted the practice of issuing FERs through electronic means as part of its digitalization efforts.

Holding that the electronic service is consistent with the statutory framework, the Court ruled that “it is difficult to accept the submission that there has been no valid service of the FER under the Act.”

The court also emphasized that the timelines prescribed under Section 21(1) and Rule 24B are mandatory in nature. It noted that no response was filed to the FER within either the original or extended period and that a belated attempt to seek extension in June 2024 could not revive an application that had already been abandoned.

Finding no merit in the challenge, the Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the patent application had been rightly treated as abandoned due to non-compliance with statutory timelines.

For Petitioner: Advocates Sudeep Sanyal, Sukanta Das and Chandrachur Lahiri

For Respondent: Advocates Siddhartha Lahiri and Mary Dutta for R-1-5; Advocates Dibashis Basu and Tutun Das for R-6.