IP Intelligence › What Changed › A divisional filed to answer a unity objection cannot then b
What changed · 29 April 2026
A divisional filed to answer a unity objection cannot then be rejected as already covered
What changed
In AbbVie Ireland Unlimited Co v Deputy Controller, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 65/2024, decided 29 April 2026, the Delhi High Court held that where a divisional is filed in response to the Patent Office's own lack-of-unity objection, the Controller cannot later reject it on the ground that its claims were already covered by the parent.
Why it matters
It closes a circular position applicants were being caught in: told to divide, then told the division was unnecessary. Read together with the 2023 Division Bench ruling that plurality is tested on the disclosure rather than the claims, the route to a divisional is now considerably clearer.
Who should care
Anyone who has received a plurality-of-inventions objection.
What you should do
Preserve the unity objection on the file and refer to it expressly when filing the divisional. And remember the hard limit: a divisional must be filed before the parent is granted.
Sources & further reading
- The Patents Act, 1970 (consolidated to 1 August 2024) — Official IP India text
- The Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024 - G.S.R. 211(E), 15 March 2024 — Gazette text via WIPO Lex
Related
Why unity objections arise
A unity objection is not an attack on your invention. It is the examiner saying that one application cannot cover all of this - and it creates a decision with a dead…
The divisional you could no longer file
A divisional application must be filed before the parent is granted. That is a moving target you do not control - and it is the single most common way that valuable …
The case that reopened divisional applications
Not sure whether this applies to your invention?
The honest answer usually needs someone to look at your actual disclosure, your timeline and the prior art. That is a conversation, not an article.
Educational guidance, not legal advice. This material is published by Ragulika IP for general education and information. It is not legal advice, it does not create a professional-client relationship, and it is not a substitute for advice on your own facts. Patentability, infringement, prosecution strategy and every other IP outcome turn on the specific facts and on the law and Patent Office practice as they stand at the time you act. Please take professional advice before making a decision, and read the underlying provision or judgment before relying on any point stated here.
Last reviewed by Ragulika IP on 2026-08-23. Indian patent law and Patent Office practice change; check the position before you rely on it.