GOVERNMENT ISSUES REVISED NOTIFICATION DEFINING “STARTUP” AND “DEEP TECH STARTUP”
Notification: G.S.R. 108(E)
Supersedes: G.S.R. 127(E) dated 19 February 2019
Effective Date: Date of publication in the Official Gazette i.e. 4th February, 2026
With a view to updating the regulatory framework for innovation-driven enterprises, the Central Government has issued Notification G.S.R. 108(E) redefining the scope and conditions applicable to Startups and Deep Tech Startups. The present notification supersedes the earlier Notification G.S.R. 127(E) dated 19 February 2019 and lays down updated provisions relating to the definition, recognition, certification, and operational conditions governing Startups and Deep Tech Startups.
Definition of “Startup”
A “Startup” means an entity incorporated or registered in India as a private limited company, partnership firm, limited liability partnership, Multi-State Cooperative Society or a Cooperative Society under the applicable State or Union Territory law. Such entity must be within ten years from incorporation and must not have a turnover exceeding ₹200 crore in any financial year. It must be engaged in innovation, development or improvement of products, processes or services, or operate a scalable business model with high potential for employment generation or wealth creation. Entities formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business are excluded, and Startup status ceases upon completion of ten years or upon crossing the turnover limit. A Deep Tech Startup shall cease to enjoy such status on completion of twenty years from the date of incorporation or if its turnover exceeds ₹300 crore in any previous financial year.
Definition of “Deep Tech Startup”
A “Deep Tech Startup” is a Startup engaged in developing solutions based on new scientific or engineering knowledge, having high research and development intensity, owning or creating significant novel intellectual property and facing long development timelines and technical uncertainty. For such entities, the permissible age is extended to twenty years and the turnover threshold is increased to ₹300 crore. The status is to be determined as per the framework and guidelines issued by DPIIT.
Recognition and Certification
Eligible entities must apply for recognition through the DPIIT portal with incorporation documents and a brief description of their innovative or scalable business. Deep Tech applicants must submit additional technical material. DPIIT may grant recognition or reject the application with reasons. For tax benefits under Section 80-IAC of the Income-tax Act, eligible Startups and Deep Tech Startups may apply to the Inter-Ministerial Board, which may grant or refuse certification after due enquiry.
Conditions and Revocation
Recognized Startups and Deep Tech Startups are required to deploy funds primarily towards core business, innovation and scaling and are restricted from investing in non-productive or speculative assets during the recognition period. Where any certificate is found to have been obtained on false information, the same may be revoked and shall be deemed never to have been issued. The Central Government may relax or modify the conditions of the notification in special circumstances.
Conclusion
The notification establishes a streamlined regime for recognition and regulation of Startups and Deep Tech Startups, expands the scope for research-intensive enterprises and reinforces regulatory safeguards while promoting innovation-driven growth.
DELHI HIGH COURT FRAMES ISSUES IN F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE AG V. NATCO PHARMA LIMITED
Order dated: 12 February 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh
Case: F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Anr vs Natco Pharma Limited on 12 February, 2026
Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970
Case Background
The present commercial suit concerns Indian Patent IN 334397 titled “Compounds for Treating Spinal Muscular Atrophy”. The Plaintiffs instituted the suit alleging infringement of the patent by the Defendant, while the Defendant filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Upon completion of pleadings and with the consent of the parties, the Court proceeded to frame issues for trial.
Issues Framed:
The Court framed issues on whether the Plaintiffs are the proprietors of Indian Patent IN 334397 and whether the Defendant has infringed the said patent. It further framed issues on the validity of the suit patent on the grounds raised in the counterclaim, including lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, non-qualification as an invention within the meaning of Sections 2(1)(j) and (ja), non-patentability under Section 3(d), insufficiency of disclosure, lack of clarity and definiteness of claims, false suggestion or representation, and non-compliance with disclosure obligations under Section 8 of the Act. Additional issues were framed on whether the Plaintiffs have worked the suit patent in India, whether the patent has been inadequately worked contrary to the objectives of the Act, and the question of damages or rendition of accounts and relief. The Court recorded that no other issue arose or was pressed by the parties.
Appointment of Local Commissioner:
With a view to expediting the trial, and at the request of the Plaintiffs with the consent of the Defendant, the Court appointed Mr. J.R. Aryan, District Judge (Retd.), as Local Commissioner for recording of evidence. Directions were issued prescribing timelines for filing of witness lists and evidence affidavits, and for completion of examination-in-chief and cross-examination of both sides. The parties were directed to endeavour to complete the trial and final arguments within one year, and to approach the Local Commissioner for fixing dates for recording of evidence.
Confidentiality Application:
An application was filed by the Defendant seeking permission to place certain confidential documents on record in sealed cover and for constitution of a confidentiality club in terms of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 and the Delhi High Court Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022.
The Plaintiffs raised no objection to the application. The Court accordingly allowed the application, directed that the documents be kept in sealed cover, and constituted a confidentiality club comprising nominated counsel and in-house representatives of both parties. The members of the confidentiality club were directed to file affidavits and adhere to the prescribed confidentiality protocol.
Conclusion
The Court formally settled the issues for trial in the patent infringement and revocation proceedings between Roche and Natco concerning Indian Patent IN 334397. A Local Commissioner was appointed for expeditious recording of evidence, with timelines fixed for completion of trial. The Defendant’s confidentiality application was allowed, and a confidentiality club was constituted for handling sensitive documents, thereby paving the way for a time-bound trial on merits.
UNITY PRESERVED, DIVISION DENIED: POST-GRANT FILING NOT ALLOWED
Case: Yangtze Memory Technologie Co Ltd vs Union Of India and Anr on 5 February, 2026
(Delhi High Court)
Sections 16, 43 & 10(5), Patents Act, 1970
The matter concerned whether a divisional application under Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970 can be filed after the grant of the parent patent. The Petitioner, whose application had faced a unity of invention objection under Section 10(5) but was ultimately granted, sought to file a divisional application post-grant; the Patent Office refused on the ground that Section 16 permits filing only before grant, leading to the present writ petition.
Submissions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner argued that it had orally expressed its intention to file a divisional during the hearing and that the Controller had assured a further hearing if issues remained unresolved. The grant on 26 July 2024, without prior notice, allegedly deprived it of the opportunity to exercise its statutory right under Section 16.
It claimed to have acted bona fide and with diligence by attempting to file the divisional immediately after learning of the grant. The Petitioner relied on BASF SE v The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, arguing that a divisional should be permitted where there is demonstrated intent and absence of fault.
Submissions of the Respondents
The Respondents argued that Section 16(1) unequivocally requires a divisional application to be filed before the grant of the parent patent. The Petitioner had more than three years (May 2021 to July 2024) to file a divisional but chose instead to contest the unity objection and seek its waiver.
The reference to filing a divisional in the written submissions was merely contingent upon the objection being sustained. Once the Controller accepted the Petitioner’s arguments and waived all objections, including under Section 10(5), no occasion arose for division.
It was further submitted that under Section 43, once an application is found in order, the Controller must grant the patent expeditiously and is not required to provide prior notice of grant. The reliance on BASF was misplaced, as in that case the divisional had been filed prior to knowledge of grant.
Court’s Analysis
The Court held that Section 16 clearly mandates that a divisional application must be filed before the grant of the parent patent. The discretion to file a divisional lies exclusively with the applicant.
The Petitioner consistently defended unity of invention and did not elect to file a divisional at any stage prior to grant. The statement in the written submissions reserving the right to file a divisional was conditional and dependent on the Controller sustaining the objection. Since the Controller accepted the Petitioner’s submissions and waived the Section 10(5) objection, the contingency never arose.
The Court further held that Section 43 does not require advance notice before grant. Once objections were satisfied, the Controller was statutorily bound to grant the patent expeditiously.
The decision in BASF SE v The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs was distinguished on facts.
Conclusion
The Court held that a divisional application cannot be filed after the grant of the parent patent. As the Petitioner attempted to file the divisional only on 31 July 2024 after the patent was granted on 26 July 2024 the refusal by the Patent Office was lawful. Finding no violation of natural justice or statutory error, the writ petition was dismissed.
NATURAL JUSTICE OVER SYNERGY: PATENT REJECTION OVERTURNED
Case: Upl Limited vs Haryana Pesticides Manufacturers on 5 February, 2026 (Calcutta
High Court)
Section 25, section 14, section 15, and Rule 55
The appellant filed a patent application (No. 201831011137) on 26 March 2018 for an invention titled “HERBICIDAL COMBINATIONS.” The claims focused on synergistic herbicidal compositions comprising Triazolone, Photosystem II inhibitors, and either ALS inhibitors or bleacher herbicides. On 27 April 2023, the Controller rejected the application following a pre-grant opposition filed under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The rejection was based on a lack of novelty (s.25(1)(b)), a lack of inventive step (s.25(1)(e)), and the determination that the invention was a “mere admixture” (s.25(1)(f) read with s.3(e)). The appellant subsequently challenged this order, alleging that the Controller failed to follow mandatory legal procedures and ignored experimental data proving synergy.
Submissions by the Parties
The Appellant contended that the Controller committed a grave procedural error by failing to provide a separate hearing under Sections 14 or 15 for the examination of the patent, despite a specific request. They argued that the Controller “mechanically reproduced” the opponent’s arguments without independent analysis and failed to consider that certain prior art (D4) cited in the First Examination Report (FER) was untraceable.
Conversely, the Respondents (the Opponent and the Controller) argued that consolidating the examination and opposition proceedings is permissible under Rule 55(5) for administrative efficiency. They maintained that the rejection was justified because the combinations were obvious and lacked concrete proof of synergy, rendering the order a valid, reasoned statutory decision.
Analysis of the Court
The Court’s analysis centered on the statutory distinction between the examination process (governed by Sections 14 and 15) and the pre-grant opposition process (governed by Section 25). It ruled that these are two “distinct, separate, and independent stages” that cannot be merged. While a Controller may issue a simultaneous decision, the Court emphasized that an opponent has no right to participate in the examination stage, which is strictly between the Controller and the applicant.
The Court found that by passing a single combined order without a Section 14 hearing, the Controller violated the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, citing S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, the Court held that the order lacked independent “application of mind,” as the Controller merely extracted the opponent’s views and concluded they were the same as the Office’s views without providing original reasoning.
Conclusion
The Court concluded that the “serious procedural infirmity” and the violation of natural justice vitiated the rejection order, making it unnecessary to deliberate on the technical merits of the herbicides. Consequently, the Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to a different Controller for a fresh hearing. The new Controller is directed to provide separate considerations for the examination and opposition proceedings and must issue a reasoned order within twelve weeks. The Court specifically noted that any future composite order must clearly identify which parts address the Section 15 examination and which address the Section 25(1) opposition to ensure transparency and fairness.
POA TECHNICALITY OVERRULED: COURT UPHOLDS FAIR PROCESSING
Case: Pioneer Pet vs Controller General Of Patents Designs … on 4 February, 2026
Section 5(4) the Designs Act, 2000, Rule 21, Rule 18(2) of the Designs Rules, 2001
The Petitioner filed Design Application No. 417361-001 on 18 May 2024, seeking registration of a design with the office of the Respondents. On 29 May 2024, the Petitioner’s counsel sent the original Power of Attorney (POA) by speed post along with a covering letter dated 20 May 2024, explicitly mentioning the application number, and requested a hearing if any clarification was required. The original POA was received by the office on 3 June 2024. Subsequently, on 19 June 2024, the office issued a First Examination Report (FER), raising an objection that the POA was not duly endorsed with the design application number. Since the application number was included in the covering letter and not on the POA itself, the Petitioner did not file a reply, expecting the registration to proceed. However, on 28 April 2025, the office issued an order deeming the application abandoned under Section 5(4) of the Designs Act, 2000 read with Rule 21 of the Designs Rules, 2001, on the ground that no response was received to the FER within the stipulated period.
Submissions by the Petitioner and Respondents:
The Petitioner challenged the order through a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the abandonment of the application violated principles of natural justice and Rule 18(2) of the Designs Rules, as the Petitioner had requested a hearing in the covering letter. The Petitioner argued that the objection raised in the FER was trivial and technical because the application number was clearly mentioned in the covering letter accompanying the POA, and the Respondent had raised no objections regarding the novelty or registrability of the design itself.
The Respondents, on the other hand, contended that the application number should have been endorsed directly on the POA, and in the absence of such endorsement, the FER remained unaddressed, justifying the abandonment.
Analysis by the Court:
The Court examined the FER and the corresponding documents submitted by the Petitioner, including the POA and covering letter. It was observed that the only objection raised by the office pertained to the absence of the application number on the POA, while the number was clearly mentioned in the covering letter accompanying it. The Court noted that the Petitioner had complied with the procedural requirement in a reasonable manner, and therefore, there was no justification for deeming the application abandoned. The Court emphasized that ignoring the covering letter and treating the application as abandoned amounted to a procedural irregularity.
Conclusion:
The Court held that the impugned order dated 28 April 2025 was untenable and set it aside. The Respondents were directed to process the design application for registration, taking into account the original POA and the covering letter bearing the application number, in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed, and the case was disposed of without entering into the substantive merits of the design itself.
