Section 2(1)(ja) | Intellepedia

Mist in the Machine, Haze in the Reasoning: Court Reiterates Mandatory Five-Step Test for Inventive Step

A white air humidifier releasing mist in a green room with a blurred background, overlaid with the title “Mist in the Machine, Haze in the Reasoning” in bold text.

In the case of Energeo Works India Private Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents, the Patent Office refused a patent application relating to an air cooling system that used a mist of water to pre cool ambient air entering an air cooled chiller assembly. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step in view of two prior art documents and common general knowledge. The applicant challenged the refusal on the ground that the order was unreasoned and that the Controller had not applied the correct legal test for obviousness.

Ziegler-Natta Catalyst Patent Rejection Upheld for Lack of Inventive Step

Illustration of a judge at a courtroom bench holding a gavel, smiling and giving a thumbs down, with a speech bubble saying “This is ‘Natta’ Catalyst” – a pun referring to the rejection of a Ziegler-Natta catalyst patent.

The Delhi High Court upheld the refusal of Lummus Novolen’s patent for a Ziegler-Natta catalyst, citing lack of inventive step and similarity to prior art. Read the key observations and legal reasoning.

Patent on Portable Vehicle Management System goes offtrack

The Delhi High Court upheld the refusal of a patent application for a portable vehicle management system, citing lack of inventive step over prior art. This case highlights the application of key Indian patent law principles on non-obviousness and inventive step, particularly regarding mosaicing and hindsight bias.

Inventive Step Assessment: To be Anchored in Knowledge of a Person with Ordinary Skill on the Priority Date

The Delhi High Court’s decision highlights the requirement for an objective inventive step assessment anchored in the knowledge of a person skilled in the art at the priority date. The ruling emphasises the need for detailed analysis and avoidance of hindsight in patent examinations.

Rejecting Patent Applications without Comprehensive Analysis Contradicts Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, says Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court set aside a patent refusal, holding that applications must be assessed with thorough reasoning under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. The judgment stresses the need for detailed analysis of inventive step and legal compliance in patent rejections.

Inventive Step analysis requires a rigorous examination, not surface analysis, says the Delhi High Court.

The Delhi High Court criticised the Controller of Patents for a superficial inventive step analysis in a recent patent refusal, emphasising the need for rigorous and well-reasoned assessments. The Court has directed a fresh hearing, highlighting the standards required under Indian patent law.

Without Proper Inventive Step Analysis, Patent Office’s Order is Unreasoned – Says Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court set aside a Patent Office order rejecting Gogoro Inc’s application for lack of inventive step, citing inadequate reasoning. The case was remanded for proper analysis under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act.