Patent Application Refused By Deputy Controller Of Patents – Appealed – Remanded Back For Fresh Consideration By The Hon’ble Delhi High Court


In the matter of – N.V. SATHEESH MADAV & ANR. VS DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & DESIGNS (C.A.(COMM. IPD-PAT) 111/2022- A Patent Application for the product [A Bio-Bed for growing Vigna radiata (Linn) Wilczek plants] was filed in December, 2008 at the Delhi Patents Office along with ten provisional claims. A First Examination Report (FER) was issued on March 30, 2017 and the objection was raised that the claims lack inventive step in view of the prior-arts document that were mentioned in the report.The report further made claims that the product wasn’t an invention within the meaning of section 2(1) (j) of The Patents Act, 1970 and the claims relate to a method of agriculture and hence, would not be patentable.

The report raised relentless objections stating that the claims do not clearly define the bio bed preparation steps and also objected that the claims only mentioned the result of the method and did not take into account any points regarding the technical features of using the said method. The report also had objections regarding the clarity and conciseness of the explanations provided in the claims made in the patent application. It considered it to be vague as it did not explain terms such as “controlled manner” or It is not clear how much quantity of hydrant is being referred to as “small quantity”. It has objected to the format of the claims which were not in proper format as they should be.

Patent Application[Image Sources : Shutterstock]

In order to rectify the supposed claims that the report had raise objection towards, the claims were amended by the appellants and amended claims were filed afresh. These amended claims stated details about the use of non-absorbent cotton for the making of the bio-bed and method for preparation of the bio-bed:

A bio-bed for growing Vigna radiata (Linn.)Wilczek plants, comprising a plurality of layers of non-absorbent cotton obtained from seeds of Gossypium herbaceum, wherein the plurality of layers of non-absorbent cotton have a combined total thickness of 3 cm.

A method for preparing a bio-bed useful for growing Vigna radiata (Linn.) Wilczek plants, the method comprising the steps of: effecting preparation of a non-absorbent cotton from seeds of Gossypium herbaceum by bleaching; producing a plurality of layers of the non- absorbent cotton; and stacking the plurality of layers of the non- absorbent cotton to form the bio-bed, wherein the plurality of layers of the non- absorbent cotton have a combined total thickness of 3 cm. The plurality of layers of the non-absorbent cotton is stacked in a china dish or glass beaker.

The impugned order was passed by the Deputy Controller refusing the grant of patent under Section 15 of The Patent Act, 1970 on the following grounds:

  1. Lacking inventive step in terms of Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act and;
  2. Not-patentable subject matter under Section 3(d) and 3(j) of the Act.


Submissions by Counsel for the Appellants- Mr. Tarun Khurana (Adv.)

In the response to the FER, Mr.Tarun Khurana compellingly provided essential explanations that helped in looking upon the differences between prior parts and the bio-bed, apart from dealing with the other objections raised by the Controller in the FER. Below is a summary of the submissions made by the Mr.Khurana:

  • The Deputy Controller did end up dropping the objection relating to the non-patentability of the invention but was stoic about the fact that the invention lacked the inventive steps and also claimed non-patentability under Section 3(d) of The Patents Act, 1970. This was so because their perception of the bio-bed was that it was mere application of cotton bed for germination of seed. Hence, the Deputy Controller refused the grant of patent because of lack of inventive steps and non-patentability of the product.
  • However, Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that none of the prior-arts were discussed in the impugned order passed by the Controller.
  • The appellants in their reply/written submissions elaborated that their claim is different from the prior-art and the impugned order has not discussed the prior-arts efficiently.
  • There was no discussion about the ‘non-absorbent cotton’, which is a very crucial denominator of the product in question and forms the basis for the invention.
  • Further, the objection under Section 3(j) is not applicable in the present case as the subject matter of the invention is neither plants nor animals or parts of them thereof or seeds.
  • The impugned order had refused to grant patent on the basis of Section 3(d) of The Patents Act, 1970 as they say that the non-absorbent cotton is already in existence and hence, it is not an invention. To which, Mr. Tarun Khurana submitted that they are not talking about non-absorbent cotton but about the product- “Bio-Bed” which is formed with the help of the aforesaid cotton. Hence, The bio-bed is not a discovery of a new form of a known substance but an entirely new product.

Submission by Counsel for the Respondent-

The counsel for the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, Mr.Manish Mohan (CGSC), handed over short submissions in support of his argument in which the objections under Section 3(h) of the Act had been reiterated. Mr.Mohan further submitted that the Patent claimed is not an invention and there is no inventive step involved. He further submitted that the Patent Office does not give monopoly over growing seeds on such bio-beds of already known non-absorbent cotton.


  • After considering the submissions on behalf of the Counsels for the Appellants & Respondent, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi made certain analysis and findings and held that the Controller committed an error in invoking Section 3(j) of the Act on the ground that the application was in respect of biological process for production or propagation of plants and animals while in reality, the patent was sought in respect of invention of ‘bio-bed’ and the technique of making the bio-bed.
  • The court further said that in order to reject a patent application for not having inventive steps, the Controller must concentrate on the presence of three elements; The invention disclosed in the prior art, the invention disclosed in the application under consideration, and the manner in which subject invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art. Although, these elements were not looked upon by the Controller and to declare a lack of inventive steps without examining these elements was constituted as unfair by the court.
  • A Coordinate Bench of this Court in its judgment dated March 31, 2022 in Agriboard International LLC v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs,while relying upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner. Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785 and Manohar v. State of Maharashtra And Ors., AIR 2013 SC 681, has observed that the principles of audi alteram partem have to be followed by the Patent Office while rejecting a patent application.
  • Hence, the Court remanded the matter back to the IPO. The fresh consideration by the IPO must take into account the objection of lack of inventive step in the light of prior-art referred in the FER/hearing notice, which the Controller failed to adhere to. In the event the Controller wishes to raise an objection under Section 3(j), a fresh hearing notice be issued to the appellants so that the appellants are accorded a chance to meet the Section 3(j) objection.
  • The court has also looked upon the data provided by the Counsel for the Appellant, which shows a vast difference between the Vigna Radiata (Linn.) growing on the bio-bed and the one growing on normal soil. The fact that the product in question provides a better condition for the plant to grow and benefit agriculture is a crucial stand that points towards the patentability of the product. The Court has further declared that the Controller must work towards passing a reasoned order while considering all the relevant claims that have not been put into consideration before and must do so within a limited time period of four months.


In the present case, the Patent Office failed to analyse the claims judiciously, which Mr. Tarun Khurana vehemently opposed thereby arguing as to how the Patent Office had merely rejected the application without providing justifiable reasoning for the objections that they raised. The Controller failed to analyse as to how the invention that is the subject matter of the patent application is lacking inventive step. It also fails to mention how the subject is obvious to a person skilled in the art.

This rejection of the application exudes a certain nonchalance displayed by the Deputy Controller and it makes it pertinent for the application to have a fresh consideration that it would now receive.

The Judgement in the present matter, passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal of the High Court of Delhi can be accessed here.

Author: Vikramaditya Singh, Litigation Associate at Khurana & Khurana Advocates & IP Attorneys, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to

Leave a Reply



  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010