Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 31.08.2026
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Patent Refusal for Lack of Reasoned Order and Remands for Fresh Consideration under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .
The Bombay High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Deepak Nitrite Limited vs. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. This case revolved around the refusal of a patent application for a novel food-grade sodium nitrite and its production method. The judgment not only impacts the parties involved but also sets important precedents for patent examination standards in India.
Background of the Case
Deepak Nitrite Limited filed a patent application (No. 202021019409) for “A Free-Flowing Food Grade Sodium Nitrite and Production Method Thereof.” The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Mumbai, refused the application under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970, citing lack of inventive step as per Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act. The refusal was based on the assertion that the claimed reduction in impurities was common general knowledge and that the process steps were routine laboratory procedures.
Key Arguments Presented
Petitionerβs Submissions
- Product Claims (Claims 1-3):
- The claimed product was distinguished from prior art by its unique impurity profile, crucial for achieving food-grade quality.
- The Controllerβs order failed to cite any authoritative source for the alleged “common general knowledge” and did not analyze whether the specific impurity profile was disclosed or suggested in prior art.
- Process Claims (Claims 4-8):
- The process involved a synergistic combination and specific sequencing of steps, not merely routine filtration.
- The Controller isolated a single step (filtration) and ignored the inventive contribution of the integrated process.
- Legal Precedents:
- The petitioner cited several judgments emphasizing the need for a reasoned analysis, identification of inventive concepts, and proper assessment of common general knowledge.
Respondentβs Submissions
- The Respondent defended the refusal, arguing that the order was passed after due examination.
- Upon judicial questioning, the Respondent conceded that the order lacked independent analysis of the process claims and that it would have been more appropriate to consider the invention as a whole.
Courtβs Analysis and Findings
- On Common General Knowledge:
- The Court held that invoking “common general knowledge” without citing identifiable sources is impermissible and arbitrary.
- The Controller must substantiate such assertions with published sources predating the patent application.
- On Reasoned Orders:
- The Court criticized the recurring pattern of non-speaking, inadequately reasoned orders from the Patent Office.
- It emphasized the mandatory obligation of Controllers to provide well-reasoned, speaking orders that demonstrate independent application of mind and address all objections and responses.
- On Remand and Future Conduct:
- The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different Controller.
- It directed that the application be decided within twelve weeks, ensuring compliance with the standards outlined in the judgment.
Broader Implications
This judgment highlights systemic issues in patent examination, such as:
- Failure to provide applicants a fair opportunity to address objections.
- Lack of independent reasoning and mechanical reproduction of prior art or objections.
- The need for transparency and accountability in quasi-judicial decisions.
The Courtβs directions reinforce the importance of reasoned decision-making and adherence to natural justice principles in the patent grant process. The judgment is expected to influence future conduct of the Patent Office and improve the quality of patent examination in India.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Courtβs decision in Deepak Nitrite Limited vs. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs is a landmark ruling that strengthens procedural safeguards for patent applicants. It underscores the judiciaryβs commitment to upholding fairness, transparency, and reasoned analysis in intellectual property adjudication.
Connected Matter
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Source: Bombay High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707
