Summary
In the case of Stromag GmbH vs. Controller General of Patents, the Calcutta High Court set aside a patent refusal order that rejected the application with a single-line conclusion. The court ruled that quasi-judicial decisions must be supported by reasons, and held that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice due to lack of analysis.
Patent Refusal Without Reasoned Analysis
Stromag GmbH filed a patent application for a “Hydraulically Actuatable Disk Brake and Azimuth Drive.” The Patent Office raised objections under Sections 2(1)(j), 3(f), and 10 of the Patents Act in its First Examination Report (FER). The applicant amended its claims and filed detailed responses. A hearing was held, and further written submissions were provided. However, the Controller rejected the application, stating, in a single sentence, that the claimed invention was a mere combination of known prior arts.
Questions Before the Court
-
-
- Whether the refusal of the patent application through a single-line conclusion without analysis violates principles of natural justice.
- Whether a quasi-judicial authority such as the Controller of Patents is required to record reasons in support of its decision.
-
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Appellant:
-
-
- The impugned order lacks reasoning and merely concludes that the invention is a combination of prior arts.
- No analysis was provided on how the cited prior arts render the invention obvious.
- The order violated principles of natural justice by denying a fair opportunity to understand and respond to the grounds of refusal.
-
Respondent:
-
-
- The application was liable to be rejected on grounds including suppression.
- The order sufficiently dealt with the contentions raised in the FER.
-
Court’s Analysis of Lack of Reasoning in Order
The court stated that the refusal order did not contain any analytical reasoning. It held that the mere reproduction of prior art followed by a conclusion that the claimed invention lacks an inventive step does not constitute a legally sustainable order. According to the court, a quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its decision, as reasons are the soul of any judicial or quasi-judicial order.
The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments to emphasise that:
-
-
- An order must speak for itself.
- The absence of reasons violates natural justice.
- Cut-copy-paste formats without substantive reasoning are insufficient.
- The quality and legitimacy of a judicial process depend on its reasoning.
-
The court concluded that in the absence of “why,” the “what” in the decision cannot stand. It stated that a conclusion must be connected to a clear analytical path that considers the arguments, evidence, and law.
Findings
The court set aside the refusal order for being unreasoned and in violation of principles of natural justice. It remanded the matter to a different Hearing Officer with directions to adjudicate the application afresh within four months after granting a hearing.
Relevant Paras
The court cited and relied on the following key paragraphs from previous judgments:
-
-
- Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496: “The face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority… must not be like the ‘inscrutable face of a sphinx.’” Para 15.
- Siemens Engg. and Mfg. Co. v. Union of India, (1976) 2 SCC 981: “Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons… A mere pretence of compliance would not satisfy the requirement of law.” Para 24.
- Rama Varma Bharathan Thampuram v. State of Kerala, (1979) 4 SCC 782: “Natural justice requires reasons to be written for the conclusions made.” Para 27.
- Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab, (1979) 2 SCC 368: “Rubber-stamp reason is not enough… Reasons are the links between the materials on which conclusions are based and the conclusions themselves.” Para 28.
- H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt v. Commissioner, HR&CE, (1979) 4 SCC 642: “Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of a particular law ceases, so does the law itself.” Para 29.
- Ram Chander v. Union of India, (1986) 3 SCC 103: “Duty to give reason is an incident of judicial process… appellate authority must act in accordance with natural justice.” Para 32.
- UPSC v. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi, (2021) 4 SCC 516: “Cutting, copying and pasting… may present a veneer of judicial reasoning, bereft of the substance which constitutes the heart of the judicial process… Reasons constitute the soul of a judicial decision.” Para 5.
- Toyo Engineering Corporation v. Controller General of Patents, AID 17/2022: “Orders of such nature need to meet the twin tests of ‘why’ and ‘what’. It is the ‘why’ which sustains the ‘what’… The order impugned has no element of ‘why’ for the ‘what’ therein to stand on.” As cited by the court.
-
Case Citation: Stromag GmbH v. Controller Gen. of Patents, IPDPTA/12/2025 (Cal HC, Sept. 4, 2025). https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82695785/ (Visited on 26 October, 2025)
Disclaimer: This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.
