Summary
In the case of M/s TVS Motor Company Limited vs The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, the court set aside the rejection of a patent application for a scooter frame design. It held that the Patent Office failed to properly analyse inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Background
TVS Motor Company filed Patent Application No. 2119/CHE/2014 for a two-wheeled vehicle frame assembly. The design used gusset plates at specific junctions of a scooter frame to improve load distribution and create more space for a utility box. The application was rejected by the Patent Office on the ground that the invention lacked inventive step, citing two prior art documents—D1 (US patent for a motorcycle frame) and D3 (Japanese patent for a scooter storage box).
Questions Before the Court
• Did the claimed invention demonstrate an inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act?
• Were the cited prior art documents relevant and sufficient to conclude obviousness?
• Was the rejection order passed after proper application of the legal test for inventive step?
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Appellant (TVS Motor Company)
• Claimed that the invention improved scooter frame strength and utility box size by repositioning gusset plates.
• Argued that the Patent Office did not follow the five-step obviousness test laid out in F. Hoffmann La Roche v. Cipla.
• Stated that the cited prior art did not teach or suggest the same configuration of gusset plates for solving the same technical problem.
Respondent (Patent Office)
• Argued that gusset plates were well-known and their use in the claimed positions was a workshop improvement.
• Contended that combining the features of D1 and D3 would have led a person skilled in the art (PSITA) to the claimed invention.
• Maintained that the invention lacked the technical advance required for an inventive step.
Court’s Scooter Frame and Inventive Step Analysis
The court examined the legal definition of “inventive step” under Section 2(1)(ja), which requires a technical advance or economic significance and non-obviousness to a PSITA. According to the court, the Patent Office failed to follow a structured test for obviousness. It said that the analysis must assess whether a skilled person, with access to existing knowledge and facing the same problem, would arrive at the claimed solution.
The court reviewed the cited prior arts and said as follows:
• D1 relates to motorcycle frames and gussets, but it did not address the problem solved by the claimed invention.
• D3 describes a scooter with a storage box, but it did not involve gusset plates or load distribution.
According to the court, even if D1 and D3 were combined, they would not lead a PSITA to the invention claimed by TVS. The court also noted that the simplicity of the invention did not automatically make it obvious.
The court found the Patent Office’s analysis insufficient, especially given the 18-month delay between the hearing and the final order. It concluded that a proper obviousness analysis had not been done.
Findings
• The rejection of the patent application was set aside.
• The matter was remanded for fresh consideration by a different officer.
• The Patent Office was permitted to introduce new prior art, but must provide the applicant an opportunity to respond.
• TVS was allowed to submit further technical data on load shifting.
• A fresh, reasoned decision was asked to be made within four months.
Relevant Paras
Para 13: “The subject application was rejected… for lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja)… citing two prior arts, D1 and D3.”
Para 18: “The appellant asserts inventiveness in respect of the deployment of gusset plates… whether these features would be obvious to PSITA should be tested against cited prior arts.”
Para 25: “Even by combining D1 and D3, a non-inventive PSITA cannot arrive at the claimed invention.”
Para 30: “The impugned order is set aside and Patent Application No.2119/CHE/2014 is remanded for reconsideration…”
Case Citation
M/s TVS Motor Company Limited vs The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, CMA(PT) No.60 of 2024, decided on 28 November 2025, [2025:MHC:2737], available at: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/77284003/, visited on 22 December 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.