In a recent decision by the Calcutta High Court\u2019s Intellectual Property Rights Division, an order rejecting a patent application for a \u201cA Lamp Lightning Control Circuit\u201d was set aside for lacking adequate reasoning. The court found that the Controller had merely reproduced prior procedural documents without addressing the substantive contentions and evidence presented by the appellant.<\/p>\n
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd. (Shindengen) filed a patent application in 2015 seeking protection for a circuit design aimed at delivering stable voltage to lamps despite fluctuations in alternating current. The claimed invention involved delaying the firing timing of a thyristor to suppress peak voltages and reduce heat dissipation\u2014purportedly a significant technical improvement over existing systems.<\/p>\n
The Controller issued a First Examination Report (FER) on February 13, 2020, and Shindengen responded to the FER with detailed submissions addressing the cited prior arts D1, D2 and D3, asserting that the invention was neither obvious nor a mere aggregation of known techniques. Subsequently, the Controller issued a hearing notice on September 15, 2023 and a hearing was conducted on October 20, 2023. Pursuant to the hearing and the filing of written submissions, the Controller rejected the application under Sections 2(1)(j) and 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, citing lack of inventive step and novelty.<\/p>\n
The Court observed that the refusal order was a verbatim reiteration of the hearing notice, devoid of any engagement with the applicant\u2019s submissions or the international search report they relied upon. The court relied on the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood<\/em>, (2023) 7 SCC 282, to underscore the constitutional and jurisprudential importance of reasoned decisions in fostering transparency and judicial accountability.<\/p>\n Acknowledging Shindengen\u2019s submissions that the refusal order lacked reasons, the Court held that the refusal was unsustainable. It remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration, with a directive to conduct a hearing and dispose of the matter within three months. The Court also clarified that it had not adjudicated on the merits of the case, thereby preserving all legal questions for future determination.<\/p>\n