Summary
Huntington Alloys Corporation, a US-based company, filed a patent application in India for a high-strength nickel-cobalt-chromium alloy designed for ultra-supercritical boiler applications. After eight years of inaction, the Patent Office referred the application to the Department of Atomic Energy, which refused it in a single unreasoned line. The Bombay High Court set aside both impugned orders, holding that even where the government's power to refuse a patent on atomic energy grounds is absolute and final, the applicant is entitled to a reasoned order - both to enable judicial scrutiny and to preserve the applicant's right to amend the specification under Section 65(2) of the Patents Act. The ruling arrives at a pivotal moment: the SHANTI Act, which came into force on 21 December 2025, has since repealed the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and amended Section 4 of the Patents Act to permit patents for peaceful nuclear energy inventions, potentially opening a new avenue for Huntington's application on reconsideration.
Background
An alloy designed for boiler pipes should be among the more straightforward subjects of a patent application. The case of Huntington Alloys Corporation’s decade-and-a-half journey through the Indian patent system suggests otherwise.
Huntington Alloys Corporation (“Huntington”), a US-incorporated company, filed a National Phase Patent application in India on 9 April 2008, which was allotted number 4211/KOLNP/2010. The invention, titled “Ultra Supercritical Boiler Header Alloy and Method of Preparation”, related to a high-strength nickel-cobalt-chromium alloy for header pipes in ultra-supercritical boilers operating between 538°C and 816°C. The alloy’s claimed combination of strength, ductility, toughness, and fissure-free weldability was presented as critical to boiler tube joining in these extreme industrial conditions. Huntington filed a request for examination on 9 March 2012. No steps were taken by the Patent Office under Sections 12 to 14 of the Patents Act for over eight years.
In November 2020, the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs referred the application to the Department of Atomic Energy (“DAE”) under sub-section (6) of Section 20 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (“Atomic Energy Act”), expressing a prima facie view that no patent could be granted. The DAE’s order dated 6 April 2021 directed that the application be refused by simply stating that the invention “does relate to Atomic Energy.” Huntington challenged both the Deputy Controller’s communication and the DAE’s order before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2086 of 2021.
Issues
-
-
- Whether the DAE’s refusal order under Section 20(6) of the Atomic Energy Act, read with Section 4 of the Patents Act, was sustainable in the absence of reasons.
- Whether Section 65 of the Patents Act, as amended in 2005, permits the refusal of a pending patent application, or whether the amended provision is limited to revocation of an already-granted patent.
- Whether, on setting aside an unreasoned refusal, the applicant is entitled to an opportunity to amend the specification under Section 65(2) to address atomic energy concerns.
-
Huntington’s Arguments
-
-
- The impugned orders lacked jurisdiction, disclosed no application of mind, and were unreasoned, making them liable to be quashed.
- The invention related solely to a boiler pipe alloy and had no connection to the release of atomic energy as defined under the Atomic Energy Act.
- The 2005 amendment to Section 65 of the Patents Act restricted the government’s options to revoking granted patents. The power to refuse pending applications no longer existed under the amended text.
- Without reasons, Huntington was denied the benefit of Section 65(2), which permits an applicant to amend the specification to excise any atomic energy element and save the application from refusal.
-
Union of India / DAE’s Arguments
-
-
- Under Section 20(1) of the Atomic Energy Act read with Section 4 of the Patents Act, the Central Government is the sole and final authority on whether an invention relates to atomic energy. Its direction admits of no further consideration by the Patent Office.
- The application contained niobium and tantalum compositions, bringing it within the scope of Section 20(1). The DAE’s conclusion following review was that the invention related to atomic energy.
- No hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act was required. Once the DAE assumed jurisdiction, the Patent Office’s examination function was superseded.
-
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The absolute bar and the statutory scheme
Section 4 of the Patents Act bars the grant of patents for inventions relating to atomic energy falling within Section 20(1) of the Atomic Energy Act. Section 20 vests the Central Government with exclusive authority over atomic energy and empowers it to direct the Controller to refuse any application involving atomic energy. The court accepted that once the Central Government forms this view, its determination is final. The prohibition reflects the core legislative purpose of the Atomic Energy Act, which is to keep control over atomic energy exclusively within the state.
2005 Amendment does not preclude refusal of pending applications
The court rejected Huntington’s argument that the 2005 amendment to Section 65 had removed the power to refuse pending applications. When Section 65 was first introduced, it provided for both refusal of pending applications and revocation of granted patents. By 2005, with inventors required to self-identify atomic energy inventions, the legislature assumed no such applications would remain pending. The amended text therefore, addressed only revocation. Critically, the court held that the amendment could not be read as requiring a patent to first be granted and then revoked merely because the application related to atomic energy. The prohibition in Section 20(1) of the Atomic Energy Act remained intact.
Reasons are not optional
The court’s central holding was that the DAE’s bare one-line conclusion could not stand. The court identified two grounds. First, Huntington’s specification described an alloy for boiler applications with no reference to any process releasing atomic energy. The applicant had a legitimate basis to contest the characterisation, and was entitled to know why it was rejected. Second, the court affirmed that reasons are the heartbeat of any administrative decision – they replace subjectivity with objectivity, confirm application of mind, and enable appellate scrutiny. The court drew direct support from Ceres Intellectual Property Company Limited v. Controller of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs & Ors. (W.P. No. 2257 of 2018, decided 6 October 2022), where a Division Bench of the same court had set aside an identically structured unreasoned refusal and directed fresh reconsideration.
The absence of reasons also had a concrete statutory consequence. Section 65(2) of the Patents Act permits an applicant to amend the complete specification to remove the atomic energy element, saving the application from outright refusal. That option requires knowing the basis of the objection. Without reasons, Huntington was deprived of the opportunity entirely.
Findings
In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both the parties, the Bombay High Court held that:
-
-
- The DAE’s order dated 6 April 2021 and the Deputy Controller’s communication dated 18 November 2020 were unreasoned and unsustainable and therefore set aside.
- The absolute bar under Section 4 of the Patents Act read with Section 20(1) of the Atomic Energy Act is preserved. The DAE retains the power to refuse a pending patent application on atomic energy grounds notwithstanding the 2005 amendment to Section 65.
- Even where the power to refuse is absolute and the DAE’s determination is final, the applicant is entitled to a reasoned order, enabling exercise of the amendment right under Section 65(2) and allowing judicial scrutiny.
- The DAE and the Deputy Controller must reconsider Huntington’s patent application for the invention “Ultra Supercritical Boiler Header Alloy and Method of Preparation”, consider any additional material Huntington may submit, and pass a reasoned order expeditiously.
-
Conclusion
The Huntington ruling arrives at a particularly significant moment in India’s nuclear patent landscape. Even as the Bombay High Court was directing the DAE to pass a reasoned order on Huntington’s application, the legal ground beneath Section 4 of the Patents Act was shifting.
The SHANTI Act, which came into force on 21 December 2025, repeals the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and fundamentally rewrites the patentability of nuclear inventions. The amended Section 4 of the Patents Act no longer imposes an absolute bar. Patents may now be granted for inventions relating to nuclear energy, subject to Section 38 of the SHANTI Act, which governs patentability criteria for nuclear inventions. Inventions intended for peaceful use of nuclear energy and radiation are patentable; those relating to activities exclusively reserved for the Central Government, such as enrichment and reprocessing, or those with national security implications, remain outside the grant.
For Huntington, this shift is consequential. An alloy designed for ultra-supercritical boiler applications, with no connection to weapons-grade processes, sits squarely within the category of peaceful industrial use. On reconsideration, the DAE will now need to assess the application not only against the old absolute bar but within the framework of the SHANTI Act’s liberalised regime. The court’s insistence on a reasoned order ensures that Huntington will at least know where it stands.
Case Citation: Huntington Alloys Corporation v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition No. 2086 of 2021, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, decided on 7 April 2026. Available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/146499001/
Authored by Gaurav Mishra, IP Attorney, BananaIP Counsels