Delhi High Court Pulls Up Assistant Controller For Cut-And-Paste Order, Says Grant Or Rejection Of Patent A Serious Matter

The Delhi High Court has observed that the orders refusing applications for grant of a patent cannot be passed mechanically and that any decision to grant or refuse a patent has to be informed by “due application of mind” which must be reflected in the decision.

Pulling up an Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs for passing a “copy-paste” order while refusing an application for grant of patent, Justice C Hari Shankar said that such orders do little justice to the solemn functions which have been entrusted on officers in the office of Controller of Patents and Designs.

The court was hearing a plea moved by Dolby International AB against the order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents on January 29 rejecting its application for grant of patent.

At the outset, the court was constrained to observe that the impugned order is “most unsatisfactorily drawn up” and it is hardly possible to "treat it as written or drafted".

Justice Shankar said that it is “impossible to understand” where the reference to the claims begins in the impugned order, which part of it refers to the First Examination Report (FER) and where one is to find the reasoning of the Assistant Controller.

“It is solely because of the completely arbitrary manner in which the impugned order has been passed, that the Court is not in a position to examine the order on merit,” the court said.

Justice Shankar added that the officers in the office of the Controller of Patents and Designs must bear in mind the fact that the grant or rejection of a patent is a serious matter.

The court also said that the Officer adjudicating the claim for registration of a patent must bear in mind the fact that the life of a patent is reckoned from the date when the application is made and not from the date when the patent is granted.

“A patent is meant to be a recognition of the innovative step that has been put into a crafting of an invention. Inventions increment the state of existing scientific knowledge and, thereafter, are of inestimable public interest. Any decision, whether to grant or refuse a patent has, therefore, to be informed by due application of mind, which must be reflected in the decision,” the court said.

It added that unreasonable delay in the grant of a patent results in reduction of its residual life which can itself be a serious disinclination for inventors who seek to invent new and innovative methods, products or processes.

“The impugned order, which cannot be said to satisfy even the most fundamental requisites of an order adjudicating on a claim for registration of a patent is, therefore, quashed and set aside,” the court said.

Remanding the matter to the Controller of Patents for reconsideration, the court directed that the appellant shall be granted a hearing. The court added that the case would not be decided by the officer who passed the impugned order.

Title: DOLBY INTERNATIONAL AB v. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 238

Click Here To Read Order