Madras High Court
M/S.Maya Appliances Pvt. Ltd vs Deputy Controller Of Patents And ... on 29 April, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
CMA(PT) No.5 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
CMA(PT) No.5 of 2025
&
CMP No.10003 of 2025
M/s.Maya Appliances Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at
10/5, Royal Enclave,
Besant Avenue,
Adyar, Chennai 600 020
and having office at
3/140 IT Highway
Oggiyam Thoraipakkam Chennai-600 097
Represented by its Authorized Signatory
Mr.E.Mohan ... Appellant
-vs-
1. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The Patent Office, Chennai
Intellectual Property Building
G.S.T.Road, Guindy
Chennai-600 032, Tamil Nadu
2. Versuni India Home Solutions Limited,
Novel Office Brigade Tech Part, 1st Floor,
Tower-B, Whitefield,
Bengaluru-560 066, India. ... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 10:47:37 pm )
CMA(PT) No.5 of 2025
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) filed under Section 117-A of
the Patents Act, 1970 prays that this Court may pleased to:
(i) to set aside the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the 1st
Respondent (Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs), whereby Patent
No.452008 granted to the Appellant was revoked under Section 25(4) of the
Patents Act, 1970;
(ii) To hold and declare that the subject matte rof Patent No.452008
constitutes a valid invention under the Patents Act, 1970, satisfying the
criteria of novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability;
(iii) To Direct restoration of Patent No.452008 to the Register of
Patents and declare the Appellant as the lawful patentee entitled to the full
benefits and statutory rights accruing thereunder; and
(iv) Any other relief which this Court may be pleased to allow in view
of the facts and circumstances of the case.
For Appellant : Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel for
MR.Arun C.Mohan
For Respondents :Mr.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi, CGSC for R1
Mr.K.Premchand and Mr.N.C.Vishal for R2
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 10:47:37 pm )
CMA(PT) No.5 of 2025
JUDGMENT
By this appeal, order dated 04.04.2025 of the first respondent
revoking the Patent No.452008 is assailed. A patent was granted to one
Mr.Vijay Srinivasan in respect of an invention titled “An Intelligent
Cooking Stove System”, which was later assigned to the appellant. The
second respondent herein filed a post grant opposition before the Controller.
In the post grant opposition, the patent was opposed on four grounds. The
first ground of insufficiency of disclosure was rejected by the Controller.
The second ground relating to lack of novelty was also rejected. The second
respondent had contended that the invention was excluded from
patentability under Section 3(f) of the Patents Act, 1970 (the Patents Act).
The said ground of opposition was also rejected. In effect, the only
objection which was sustained related to lack of an inventive step.
2. Learned senior counsel for the appellant referred to the impugned
order and pointed out that seven prior art documents were relied upon by the
opponent. Out of these documents, he pointed out that D2 and D3 were in
the Chinese language. By referring to page 80 of the paper book [internal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 10:47:37 pm )
page 22 of the impugned order], learned senior counsel pointed out that a
finding was recorded that these documents are not being taken on record
under Rule 61(2) of the Patent Rules, 2003. In spite of recording such
finding, learned senior counsel submits that the drawings in D2 were relied
upon to conclude that the objection under Section 25(2)(e) is sustained.
3. Learned senior counsel further submits that the appellant had
initiated infringement proceedings against multiple infringers and that the
defendants therein had entered into settlements and undertook not to
infringe the appellant's patent. In view of the impugned order, he submits
that the appellant loses the benefit of the patent and that third parties would
infringe the appellant's patent with impunity.
4. Learned senior counsel for the second respondent submitted that
the impugned order does not call for interference inasmuch as the rejection
on the ground of lack of inventive step was not only on the basis of D2. By
referring to page 82 of the paper book [internal page 24 of the impugned
order], he submitted that D1, D2 and D5 were relied upon to hold that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 10:47:37 pm )
impugned patent lacks an inventive step. As regards D2, he pointed out that
the absence of an acceptable translation is inconsequential inasmuch as the
drawing, namely, Figure – 8, is sufficient to establish that D2 discloses a leg
portion connected to the top portion via a connecting mechanism.
5. By referring to the earlier granted claims, learned senior counsel
submits that the claims are very widely framed and had resulted in the
creation of an unjust monopoly. Therefore, he submits that the revocation is
fully justified.
6. Without prejudice, he also submitted that the rejection of the other
objections of the second respondent was untenable and that the first
respondent may be directed to re-examine all objections, if the Court were
inclined to remand the matter.
7. On examining the impugned order, it is evident that only the
objection relating to lack of inventive step was upheld. In this connection,
the following finding was recorded:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 10:47:37 pm )
“Documents D2 and D3 are originally in
Chinese, and their machine-translated versions
fall under Rule 61(2) of the Patents Rules, 2003.
Therefore, these documents are not taken on
record under Rule 6(2) of the Patents Rules, 2003.
However, based solely on the drawings of
D2, it is found that they depict a leg portion
connected to the top portion via a connecting
mechanism.”
As is evident from the above extract, the first respondent recorded
categorically that D2 and D3 are not taken on record under Rule 61(2) of the
Patent Rules, 2003. In the next sentence, the first respondent proceeded to
rely on the drawings of D2. Such a course of action is clearly impermissible
and untenable.
8. Apart from the above, on perusal of the analysis relating to lack of
inventive step, it is noticeable that each prior art document is referred to and
the features present and absent therein have been recorded. Thereafter, the
first respondent has combined the features of D1 and D5 and also referred to
the drawings in D2. Conspicuous by its absence in the impugned order is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 10:47:37 pm )
the reference to any pointers or cues in the cited prior arts that would cause
or enable the person skilled in the art to combine such prior arts. Even with
regard to the other objections raised by the second respondent, the
impugned order does not set out cogent reasons for rejecting such
objections. When these aspects are considered holistically, the impugned
order cannot be sustained.
9. Therefore, impugned order dated 04.04.2025 is set aside and the
matter is remanded for reconsideration on the following terms:
(i) In order to avoid the possibility of pre-determination, an officer
other than the officer who issued the impugned order shall undertake
reconsideration.
(ii) After providing a reasonable opportunity to the contesting parties,
a reasoned order shall be issued within two months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
(iii) For the avoidance of doubt, it is made clear that no opinion has
been expressed herein on the merits of the patent application or on the
merits of the opposition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 10:47:37 pm )
(iv) It will be open to the second respondent to file translated copies
of prior arts D2 and D3. If filed, its admissibility shall be considered in
accordance with the Patents Act and Rules framed thereunder.
10. Therefore, (T)CMA(PT) No.70 of 2023 stands disposed of on the
above terms, without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.04.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
kal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 10:47:37 pm )
To
The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The Patent Office, Chennai
Intellectual Property Building
G.S.T.Road, Guindy
Chennai-600 032, Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 10:47:37 pm )
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.
kal
29.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 10:47:37 pm )
