The Calcutta High Court opined that merely because the individual parts of the claim are known or obvious when considered separately is not a ground to categorize the inventions as obvious. Instead of considering it partially, the whole invention has to be seen. The High Court expounded that the conclusion that any invention is obvious must be reached at with care, caution, and precision.
Brief Facts:
The Appellant is a leading manufacturer of industrial machine needles, precision parts, and fine tools used for the production and joining of textile fabrics. Having a global reach, the Appellant is engaged in research and development of new product use in the textile industry.
The invention of the Appellant pertains to the processing of tape-shaped material as a method of manufacture. In about 11 countries, the said invention has been granted a patent after fulfilling the same criteria of novelty, inventive steps, etc.
The present appeal has been preferred against the order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs vide which the patent application of the Appellant was rejected.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was argued that the invention was not considered as a whole and that each of the claims comprising various features must have been considered.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that the Controller dissected the invention into 2 isolated elements. It was opined by the Bench that the invention has to be seen as a whole to ascertain the inventive steps. Further, merely because the individual parts of the claim are known or obvious when considered separately is not a ground to categorize the inventions as obvious. Instead of considering it partially, the whole invention has to be seen.
The High Court expounded that the conclusion that any particular invention is obvious must be reached at with care, caution, and precision.
In the present case, there was no cogent reason to disregard the invention as lacking inventive steps and the findings also were incomplete.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the above-mentioned reasons, the Calcutta High Court set aside the order and directed fresh consideration of the patent application.
Case Title: Groz-Beckert KG V. Union of India & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur
Case No: AID No. 16 of 2022
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, Mr. S. Das, Mr. Aditya Mondal, Mr. C. Pal
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
