Summary
Deepak Nitrite Limited applied for a patent on a free-flowing, food-grade sodium nitrite with a controlled impurity profile and an integrated process for producing it. The Controller refused the application under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970 for lack of inventive step, holding that a reduction in impurities was “common general knowledge” and treating the filtration step of the process as routine. On a petition under Section 117A, the Bombay High Court held that a Controller cannot invoke common general knowledge as a self-sufficient ground of refusal without identifying its source and showing that the source predates the priority date; a bald assertion resting on the Controller’s ipse dixit is arbitrary and contrary to natural justice. Process claims must be assessed as an integrated whole rather than step by step, and the Controller is bound to pass a reasoned, speaking order. The refusal was set aside and the application remanded for fresh consideration.
Background
Deepak Nitrite Limited (“Petitioner”) filed Patent Application No. 202021019409, titled “A Free-Flowing Food Grade Sodium Nitrite and Production Method Thereof” with the Indian Patent Office on 7th September 2020.
The application claimed both a product, sodium nitrite with a specific, controlled impurity profile that kept it free-flowing and suitable for food-grade use, and an integrated multi-step manufacturing process for producing it.
On 2nd March 2023, the Controller (“Respondent”) refused the application under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Patents Act”), holding that claims 1 to 8, as amended and filed, failed to meet the inventive step requirement under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act.
On the product claims (Claims 1 to 3), the Controller held that a reduction in impurities could not amount to an inventive step, reasoning that it was common general knowledge that no compound is ever completely 100% pure.
On the process claims (Claims 4 to 8), the Controller isolated the filtration step in the manufacturing sequence, treated it as routine, and refused the claims without assessing the process as an integrated whole.
The Petitioner challenged this refusal before the Bombay High Court by way of a petition under Section 117A of the Patents Act, contending that the Controller’s reasoning rested on an unsubstantiated invocation of common general knowledge and a failure to assess the invention holistically.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether the Controller could reject the product claims (Claims 1-3) based on the reasoning that, the claims were “common general knowledge” without identifying any source for that knowledge.
- Whether the Controller could reject the process claims (Claims 4-8) by isolating the filtration step, as commonly performed in the laboratory, rather than assessing the synergistic combination and specific sequencing of the integrated process as a whole.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The Petitioner argued that the Product Claims (claims 1 to 3) were distinguishable from the cited prior art because the claimed sodium nitrite had a specific controlled impurity profile integral to achieving a food-grade sodium nitrite. Further, the Controller had rejected the claims on a mere assertion that impurities are generally known to occur in chemical compounds, without identifying any source for the assertion of “common general knowledge”.
On the Process Claims (claim 4 to 8), the Petitioner submitted that the inventive contribution lay in the synergistic combination and sequencing of the manufacturing steps. By isolating filtration as a routine laboratory operation, the Controller had failed to assess the claimed process as a whole.
Relying on several decisions such as – Medipack Global Ventures Private Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd.; Groz-Beckert KG v. Union of India and Ors.; and AGFA NV and Anr. v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the Petitioner contended that a proper inventive-step analysis required identification of the skilled person, the inventive concept, the relevant common general knowledge and the differences from prior art.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Respondent submitted there was no infirmity in the Impugned Order and that the Petitioner’s Patent Application was refused only after due examination and application of mind.
However, upon being asked to point out the independent analysis of the process claims for ‘inventive step’, Respondent fairly accepted that the order did not contain such an analysis. The Respondent also conceded that the invention ought to have been considered as a whole and claims 4 to 8 could therefore be remanded for fresh consideration.
The Respondent however opposed the remand of the Product Claims (claims 1 to 3), asserting that the impurity profile was, in any event, accounted for by ‘common general knowledge’. When questioned on the same by the Court, the Respondent was however unable to identify the source of the common general knowledge or point to material in the record that supported the assertion.
Court’s Analysis
The Court held that it is wholly impermissible for the Respondent, in a quasi-judicial order under Section 15 of the Patents Act, to invoke ‘common general knowledge’ as a self-sufficient ground for rejecting a patent application without setting out and substantiating the sources of such common general knowledge. The court noted that the Delhi High Court in AGFA NV v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, held that the Controller is required to identify the source of the asserted common general knowledge and demonstrate that such source was published prior to the priority date of the application.
A bald assertion of “common general knowledge”, without setting out the identifiable source or basis, is not only impermissible but also wholly arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. To allow such an order on the mere “ipse dixit” of the Controller by reliance on undisclosed “common general knowledge” or personal knowledge without recording reasons and affect the ability of the party against whom the order is passed to challenge it effectively.
The Court further held that the Controller is under a mandatory obligation to pass a well-reasoned and speaking order demonstrating independent application of mind. The mere reproduction of the FER, hearing notice, opposition pleadings, prior art documents cited, or positive findings does not qualify as a reasoned and speaking order. The reasoning must disclose the basis on which the Controller has arrived at the conclusions and must be recorded in order.
Conclusion
In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both the parties, the Bombay High Court held that a Controller cannot reject a patent application by invoking common general knowledge unless the order identifies and substantiates the source of that knowledge and shows that the source predates the priority date. Furthermore, the Court held that the assessment of process claims requires the Controller to consider the claimed invention as an integrated whole, rather than isolating and dismissing individual steps in isolation.
The decision of the Bombay High Court in this case reinforces the principle that patent refusals must rest on reasoned analysis, and not on unsupported assertions of common general knowledge.
Citation: Deepak Nitrite Limited v. The Assistant Controller General of Patents and Designs, Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 107 of 2025, Bombay High Court, decided on 6th July 2026. Available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/57302274/
Authored by: Kartik Shigli
Kartik is an intern at BananaIP Counsels and a 3rd-year LL.B. student at B.M.S. College of Law, Bengaluru. He has a keen interest in intellectual property law, particularly patent-related work, and draws on his background in engineering to develop a strong understanding of the technical aspects of patent matters.