Introduction:

In the case of ITC Limited vs. The Controller of Patents and Designs and Others (Case No: IPDPTA/13/2024), the Calcutta High Court addressed the rejection of ITC Limited’s patent application for a “Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol.” The Controller had denied the patent under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970, citing concerns over public health and morality, referencing The Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2019. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur presided over the appeal, scrutinizing the rationale behind the Controller’s decision.

Arguments:

Appellant’s Arguments:

ITC Limited contended that the Controller’s decision was based on preconceived notions about tobacco products without any scientific or technical evidence. They argued that the invention was not inherently linked to tobacco and could be used with various substrates. The appellant highlighted procedural lapses, including the reliance on documents not previously shared, and emphasized that the denial lacked cogent reasoning, misinterpreting the scope of Section 3(b) of the Patents Act.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The Controller maintained that the rejection was justified, aligning with the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2019, which bans the production and sale of e-cigarettes. The Controller argued that granting a patent for such an invention would be contrary to public health interests and morality.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Kapur observed that the Controller’s decision lacked a foundation in scientific or technical evidence, rendering the moral objections unsustainable. The Court emphasized that patent laws should not be influenced by subjective moral concerns without empirical support. It clarified that the grant of a patent does not equate to the right to commercialize the invention, as such activities are governed by separate regulations. The Court found that the Controller had misinterpreted the invention’s purpose and scope, erroneously assuming its exclusive use with tobacco compounds. Consequently, the Court set aside the Controller’s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, instructing a reevaluation based on objective evidence and proper reasoning.