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.<\/p>\n
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\u00b0C and 816\u00b0C. 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/em> (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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both the parties, the Bombay High Court held that:<\/p>\n The Huntington<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n The SHANTI Act<\/strong>, 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.<\/strong> <\/span>Patents may now be granted for inventions relating to nuclear energy, subject to Section 38 of the SHANTI Act<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\nFindings<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
Conclusion<\/h3>\n