Introduction:

A recent case before the Madras High Court involved an appeal by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras against the rejection of its patent application for a method involving doping potassium into ammonium perchlorate. The court examined whether the claimed invention met the criteria of novelty and inventive step under the Patents Act.

Arguments of Both Sides:

IIT Madras argued that its method, involving the use of filtrate materials like stainless steel sieve or filter paper, resulted in a new product with significant cost reductions, thereby asserting economic significance. The institute contended that the rejection on the grounds of novelty and inventive step lacked merit, and objections were raised belatedly, denying them a fair opportunity to respond.

On the other hand, the Controller of Patents and Designs defended the rejection, asserting that the method did not introduce a new reactant and merely involved routine steps like dissolution, filtration, and heating. The Controller argued that the resultant product was not sufficiently different from existing ones, failing to meet the criteria for patentability under Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(d) of the Patents Act.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, while acknowledging procedural lapses in raising objections, upheld the rejection of the patent application. The court ruled that the method lacked an inventive step as it did not introduce a new reactant and the resultant product was merely a variant of existing ones. It concluded that the economic significance of the claimed invention was unsubstantiated due to the absence of comparative experimental data.