C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 4/2025, I.A. 3780/2025 & I.A. 3781/2025 Delhi High Court

The appellants through this Appeal before the Delhi High Court sought to overturn a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing their patent application, titled “Innovative Change To Solve Any Dispute, Unexpected Business Loss, Closures, Financial Loss, Unexpected Accidents,”. The application was rejected on the grounds that it did not qualify as an invention under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970.

The Controller of Patents while rejecting the Patent application gave the following reasoning

• Lack of Novelty and Inventiveness: The claimed invention was not novel and inventive under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act. The subject matter of the claim was a black-colored wearing, which is very general and common in public use. The application did not claim any technical features of the black-coloured wearing, only its aesthetic property, i.e., colour.
• Abstract Theory: The applicant argued that the invention was a dispute-solving mechanism by not using the black-colored wearing. However, this aspect was not claimed and was considered a mere abstract theory not supported by any scientific evidence. The theory was not related to any technology and did not aim at solving a technical problem.
• Frivolous and Hypothetical: The alleged invention was considered frivolous as there was no scientific evidence provided to support the theory. The examples submitted were vague and hypothetical, lacking any scientific or technical basis.
• Lack of Technical Features: The claims did not define the technical structural and functional features of the alleged invention. The claims were not definite and did not define the scope of the invention, making them not allowable as per Section 10 of the Patents Act.

Court’s Ruling

• Delay in Filing the Appeal: The appellants delayed filing the appeal by 701 days. The only reason provided for the delay was that the appellants were following up with the respondent to re-examine the refused application. The court found this reasoning insufficient and noted that the first chat/ticket raised by the appellants was well beyond the period of limitation for filing the appeal.
• Merits of the Case: On the merits, the court agreed with the Assistant Controller’s decision that the patent application was an abstract theory not supported by scientific evidence and did not solve a technical problem. The court concluded that the subject matter of the patent application was not novel or inventive and did not meet the requirements of the Patents Act