Delhi High Court Criticizes Patent Office's Arbitrary Decision-Making in Patent Application Case

Delhi High Court Criticizes Patent Office's Arbitrary Decision-Making in Patent Application Case

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has expressed concerns about the arbitrary manner in which the patent office decides patent applications and oppositions. The court emphasized the need for clear guidelines to determine obviousness in patent applications.

Factual Background

The case involves a patent application filed by Tapas Chatterjee for a process to recover potassium sulphate and other valuable products from the residue left over after the alcohol distillation process. The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) filed a pre-grant opposition, which was upheld by the Assistant Controller of Patents.

Issues

1.  Whether the patent office's decision to reject the patent application was justified?
2.  Whether the lack of guidelines for determining obviousness in patent applications leads to arbitrary decisions?

Contentions of the Parties

Appellant's Contentions: Chatterjee argued that the patent office's decision was arbitrary and lacked reasoning. The appellant's counsel, Pravin Anand, contended that the Assistant Controller of Patents failed to provide clear reasons for rejecting the patent application.

Respondent's Contentions: CSIR argued that the patent application lacked inventive step and was obvious in light of prior art. The respondent's counsel, Vijay Joshi, supported the patent office's decision.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul observed that the patent office's decision-making process was flawed, with the Assistant Controller of Patents failing to provide clear reasons for rejecting the patent application. The court emphasized the need for clear guidelines to determine obviousness in patent applications and held that the patent office's order was unsustainable.

Decision

The Delhi High Court set aside the patent office's order and directed it to decide the application and the objection by CSIR afresh within six months. The court also highlighted the importance of providing clear reasons for rejecting patent applications.

Implications

The judgment underscores the need for transparency and clarity in patent office decisions and highlights the importance of providing clear reasons for rejecting patent applications. It also emphasizes the need for guidelines to determine obviousness in patent applications.

In this case the appellant was represented by Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Prachi Agarwal, Ms. Arpita Kulshrestha and Ms. Elisha Sinha, Advocates. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Mr. Vijay Joshi, Mr. Kuldeep Singh and Mr. Shubham Chaturvedi, Advocates. for R-1 Ms. Vindhya S. Mani, Mr. Ritvik Sharma, Ms. Naina Gupta, Mr. Bhuavan Malhotra, Ms. Surbhi Nautiyal, Ms. Harshita Agarwal, Mr. Devesh Aswal and Ms. Vedika Singhvi, Advocates. for R-2