The Bombay High Court on Monday set aside a 2021 order of the Patent Office that had rejected the patent application for a “medical therapeutic device,” observing that the Controller failed to follow mandatory statutory steps before refusing the claim. Justice Arif S. Doctor, who heard the matter in a fairly packed courtroom, remarked more than once that the refusal seemed “premature” and lacked the kind of analysis expected under patent law.
Background
The case revolved around Patent Application No. 201921036412, filed by inventor Hemant Karamchand Rohera. His device described during the hearing as a non-invasive therapeutic tool using certain frequency-based mechanisms was refused by the Patent Office primarily for “insufficient disclosure.”
Read also:- AP High Court Quashes Rowdy Sheet Against Eluru Residents, Calls Police Action Mechanical and Without Basis
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the proceedings before the Controller were strangely one-sided. They said the hearing ended on a positive note, with no hint of any remaining deficiency, yet the order later claimed the disclosure was inadequate.
The bench observed,
“If objections were never communicated, how was the applicant supposed to know what to cure?”
The respondents, however, insisted that the application was hopelessly short on technical data and that the petitioner had allegedly suppressed the fact that he had filed and lost a review petition.
Court's Observations
Early in the hearing, Justice Doctor signalled that procedural fairness would be central to the outcome. The court repeatedly noted that Sections 14 and 15 of the Patents Act require a consultative approach, not a “surprise rejection.”
Calling out inconsistencies in the Patent Office’s reasoning, the bench observed,
“The Controller cites several prior-art documents based on the applicant’s own disclosure, yet in the same breath claims the disclosure is insufficient. That contradiction cannot stand.”
The court also pointed out that the Controller had neither asked the applicant to furnish working examples nor called for clarifications, despite having the power and duty to do so. The judge added,
“You cannot reject an application for want of data without first giving the applicant a chance to provide it. The statutory scheme requires it.”
On the allegation that the petitioner suppressed the filing of a review petition, the court was not persuaded. According to the order, the omission was improper but not significant enough to dismiss the entire matter.
“Such suppression must confer some advantage or prejudice the other side. Neither is present here,” the court said.
Decision
Finding the refusal order cryptic, non-speaking, and procedurally flawed, the High Court set it aside. It directed that the patent application be reconsidered afresh by a different Controller, ensuring a clean slate.
The court concluded simply and firmly: the rejection stood invalid due to non-compliance with statutory requirements, lack of reasons, and failure to provide the applicant an opportunity to rectify alleged defects.
Case Title:- Hemant Karamchand Rohera v. Controller General of Patents & Designs & Anr.
Case Number:- Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 11 of 2022
