Summary
The Delhi High Court set aside the Patent Office’s refusal of Trident’s patent application for air-rich yarn. The Court found that the inventive step was not properly evaluated, particularly regarding homogeneous pore distribution, and ordered a fresh review.
In the case of Trident Limited v. Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court set aside the Patent Office’s refusal of a patent application relating to air-rich yarn and fabric. The Court held that the Controller had not properly examined inventive step, particularly with respect to the claimed homogeneous distribution of pores in the yarn, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in light of the prior art and the disclosures in the specification.
Facts
Trident filed the subject patent application 1867/DEL/2010 on 24 September 2010 claiming air-rich yarn and fabric having pores distributed throughout the cross-section, achieved by blending base material fibres with water-soluble fibres and subsequently dissolving the soluble fibres during fabric processing. After issuance of the FER, two hearings, and written submissions, the Controller refused the application due to lack of inventive step in view of prior art documents D1 to D4.
Issues
- Whether the Controller was correct in holding that Trident’s invention lacked an inventive step?
Trident’s Submissions
Trident argued that none of the prior art documents D1–D4 disclosed a yarn with pores uniformly distributed across the yarn cross-section. According to Trident, the Controller wrongly assumed that using similar manufacturing steps would automatically produce the same yarn, even though the prior art did not describe such pore distribution. Trident also submitted that the specific weight range of water-soluble fibres (8–25%) and the resulting pore structure were key features missing from the prior art, and that the Controller’s conclusion was based on hindsight.
Controller’s Submissions
The Controller argued that the prior art disclosed similar processes of blending water-soluble and base fibres, spinning the yarn, and later dissolving the soluble fibres, which would naturally result in a similar yarn. The Controller further submitted that uniform distribution would normally occur during routine blending, that the specification did not provide numerical proof of uniform pore distribution, and that Trident’s reliance on foreign patent grants and publications was not relevant for assessing inventive step under Indian law.
Court’s Analysis
The Court observed that Trident’s invention focused on uniform distribution of pores, and not just uniform mixing of fibres. It found that the Impugned Order did not point to any part of D1–D4 that disclosed or suggested such pore distribution. The Court also noted that the Controller did not properly consider the claimed fibre weight range or the specific manufacturing examples in the specification. Further, the Court identified contradictions in the Impugned order, where homogeneous pore distribution was acknowledged but no special steps to achieve it were recognised. The Court opined that a finding of obviousness must be based on a clear and reasoned analysis of the prior art, which was missing in this case.
Decision
The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Patent Office for fresh consideration. The Court directed that the application be reconsidered by a different Controller, with a fresh hearing to be granted to Trident, and clarified that the Controller must decide the matter on merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the Court’s observations.
Article review and accessibility review by: Dr. Neetha Mohan
Citation: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 162/2022