Rudraksh Saxena
The Calcutta High Court on May 20 (Tuesday), 2025 clarified substantial scientific or technical justification. Setting aside a decision of the Controller of Patents that refuse to grant a patent to ITC Limited, the Court underscored that Section 3(b) of the Patents Act must be interpreted objectively, and cannot be used to impose subjective moral standards in the absence of evidence.
The case revolved around ITC Limited’s attempt to patent an invention titled “A Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol”, designed to facilitate uniform heat distribution in aerosol-generating devices for inhalation. The Controller had rejected the application on the ground that the invention, allegedly linked to electronic cigarettes, could seriously harm human health and was contrary to public morality and order.
Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, who authored the judgment, held that the reasoning provided by the patent office was devoid of any credible technical or scientific basis. He observed that Section 3(b), which prohibits patents on inventions contrary to morality or public order, cannot be interpreted subjectively or based on assumptions. “Patent law must be anchored in cogent reasoning, not moral intuitions,” the Court emphasized.
Highlighting the delicate interface between patent regimes and ethical concerns, the Court cautioned against an expansive reading of morality clauses that undermines the innovation framework without adequate foundation. It further held that tobacco-related inventions are not inherently unpatentable under Indian law, and that patent applications must be assessed on technical merit rather than moral speculation.
The judgment also addressed a misinterpretation of Section 83(e) of the Patents Act by the Controller, who had wrongly assumed that patent grants inherently allow commercialization. The Court reiterated the settled legal position that patents confer only negative rights namely, the right to exclude others from using the invention not affirmative rights to sell or manufacture.
Additionally, the Court ruled that Directive Principles of State Policy in evaluating the validity of an invention under patent law.
Ultimately, the Court directed the Patent Office to reconsider ITC’s application in light of these observations. Senior Advocates Gaurav Pachnanda and J Sai Deepak appeared for ITC, while Advocate Sanjukta Gupta represented the Controller of Patents.
Case Name: ITC Limited vs. The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark
Case Number: IPDPTA/13/2024
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
Click here to access the order
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com
