Summary

The Delhi High Court overturned a patent rejection for Neeraj Gupta’s IV catheter invention, criticizing the Patent Office for failing to apply the Agriboard test for inventive step. Emphasizing the need for controllers to follow a structured approach in assessing obviousness, as laid down in precedents like Agriboard International LLC v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, the Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration

In the case of Neeraj Gupta v. The Controller of Patents and Designs, the Delhi High Court set aside the refusal of a patent for an intravenous catheter (IV Catheter) device and remanded the matter to the Patent Office. The court said that the impugned order did not apply the Agriboard three-step test for inventive step and did not give reasons on how a person skilled in the art would find the claims obvious.

Background

Neeraj Gupta, the Patent Applicant, filed a Patent Application with the Indian Patent Office bearing No. 201911036272, titled “An Intravenous Catheter Device,” on September 10, 2019. The invention pertains to a medical device used for infusing medications or fluids into a vein or drawing blood samples.

The Indian Patent Office issued a First Examination Report (FER) for the said application on February 10, 2020, objecting to novelty under Section 2(1)(j) and inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), citing prior arts D1 (WO2018096549A1) and D2 (WO2015161294A1). The applicant responded on May 29, 2020, and attended hearings, submitting written arguments. However, the Assistant Controller rejected the application through an Order dated February 11, 2021. A subsequent review petition was also dismissed on January 6, 2023. Aggrieved, the applicant therefore appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act before the Delhi High Court.

Patent Applicant’s submissions

• • • The Patent Applicant argued that the rejection orders were unreasoned and violated natural justice principles, as the Controller failed to consider detailed responses to the FER and hearing submissions.
    • The Impugned Order merely reproduced claims without addressing how the cited prior arts rendered the invention obvious.
    • The valve closure member (element 192), a core inventive feature preventing blood backflow by exerting force on the valve member’s prongs, was not disclosed in D1 or D2.
    • D1 relies on self-sealing slits made of elastic materials like silicone, which degrade over time due to wear and tear, unlike the appellant’s device.
    • D2 uses a septum with flow channels exploiting intermolecular force differences, effective only temporarily, and lacks the concave valve shape or dedicated closure member.
    • The Controller engaged in impermissible “mosaicing” of prior arts without explaining how a Person Skilled in the Art (PSITA) would combine them to arrive at the invention.
    • The orders breached the audi alteram partem doctrine by not applying mind to the appellant’s arguments.

Patent Office’s Arguments

The IPO argued that:

• • • The invention lacked inventive step based on D1 and D2.
    • The valve closure member is disclosed in D1 (as a recess and reduced diameter) and D2 (as a septum flange), performing similar functions.
    • Combining teachings from D1 (design preventing reverse blood flow) and D2 (blood-stopping functionality) would be obvious to a PSITA using common general knowledge.
    • The invention addresses the same problem as D2 but in a different way, rendering it obvious.
    • All features of independent claims 1 and 14 are covered by the prior arts.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that it must test the refusal against the Agriboard decision, which requires three elements in an obviousness rejection – (i) invention disclosed in prior arts; (ii) invention in the application; and (iii) manner of obviousness to a PSITA.

According to the court, the Controller discussed the application and the cited prior arts, but did not complete the third step by explaining how a person skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention from D1 and D2.

The court observed that D1 described a device with a one way valve and an actuator, while D2 described a septum with flow channels and relied on elasticity and intermolecular forces to arrest backflow for some time. As per the court, the impugned order did not explain functional similarity between the septum flange in D2 and the claimed valve closure member that closes prongs on a curved valve member and prevents backflow without the stated time limitation.

The court said that the observation that all features were present in D1 and D2 could not be accepted in the absence of a reasoned path of combination. In the eyes of the court, the order did not meet the requirement of a reasoned decision and failed the Agriboard framework on the third step.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection orders and remanding the application for fresh adjudication within six months, with a hearing opportunity.

Citation: Neeraj Gupta v. The Controller of Patents and Designs, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 29/2023 (H.C. Delhi Sept. 26, 2025). Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83842422/