Intellectual Property - INDIA
KamlatechContact Us
  • Intellectual Property: Patent, Design, Trademark, Copyright
  • The Patent Act 1970
    • Section 1
    • Section 2
    • Section 3
    • Section 4
    • Section 6
    • Section 7
    • Section 8
    • Section 9
    • Section 10
    • Section 11
    • Section 11A
    • Section 11B
    • Section 12
    • Section 13
    • Section 14
    • Section 15
    • Section 16
    • Section 17
    • Section 18
    • Section 19
    • Section 20
    • Section 21
    • Section 25
    • Section 26
    • Section 28
    • Section 29
    • Section 30
    • Section 31
    • Section 32
    • Section 33
    • Section 34
    • Section 35
    • Section 36
    • Section 37
    • Section 38
    • Section 39
    • Section 40
    • Section 41
    • Section 42
    • Section 43
    • Section 44
    • Section 45
    • Section 46
    • Section 47
    • Section 48
    • Section 49
    • Section 50
    • Section 51
    • Section 52
    • Section 53
    • Section 54
    • Section 55
    • Section 56
    • Section 57
    • Section 58
    • Section 59
    • Section 60
    • Section 61
    • Section 62
    • Section 63
    • Section 64
    • Section 65
    • Section 66
    • Section 67
    • Section 68
    • Section 69
    • Section 70
    • Section 71
    • Section 72
    • Section 73
    • Section 74
    • Section 75
    • Section 76
    • Section 77
    • Section 78
    • Section 79
    • Section 80
    • Section 81
    • Section 82
    • Section 83
    • Section 84
    • Section 85
    • Section 86
    • Section 87
    • Section 88
    • Section 89
    • Section 90
    • Section 91
    • Section 92
    • Section 92A
    • Section 93
    • Section 94
    • Section 99
    • Section 100
    • Section 101
    • Section 102
    • Section 103
    • Section 104
    • Section 104A
    • Section 105
    • Section 106
    • Section 107
    • Section 107A
    • Section 108
    • Section 109
    • Section 110
    • Section 111
    • Section 113
    • Section 114
    • Section 115
    • Section 116
    • Section 117
    • Section 117A
    • Section 117B
    • Section 117C
    • Section 117D
    • Section 117E
    • Section 117F
    • Section 117G
    • Section 117H
    • Section 118
    • Section 119
    • Section 120
    • Section 122
    • Section 123
    • Section 124
    • Section 124A
    • Section 124B
    • Section 125
    • Section 126
    • Section 127
    • Section 128
    • Section 129
    • Section 130
    • Section 131
    • Section 132
    • Section 133
    • Section 134
    • Section 135
    • Section 136
    • Section 137
    • Section 138
    • Section 139
    • Section 140
    • Section 141
    • Section 142
    • Section 143
    • Section 144
    • Section 145
    • Section 146
    • Section 147
    • Section 148
    • Section 149
    • Section 150
    • Section 151
    • Section 153
    • Section 154
    • Section 155
    • Section 156
    • Section 157
    • Section 157A
    • Section 158
    • Section 159
    • Section 160
    • Section 162
  • The Patent Rules 2003
    • Rule 1
    • Rule 2
    • Rule 3
    • Rule 4
    • Rule 5
    • Rule 6
    • Rule 7
    • Rule 8
    • Rule 9
    • Rule 10
    • Rule 11
    • Rule 12
    • Rule 13
    • Rule 14
    • Rule 15
    • Rule 16
    • Rule 17
    • Rule 18
    • Rule 19
    • Rule 19A
    • Rule 19B
    • Rule 19C
    • Rule 19D
    • Rule 19E
    • Rule 19F
    • Rule 19G
    • Rule 19H
    • Rule 19I
    • Rule 19J
    • Rule 19K
    • Rule 19L
    • Rule 19M
    • Rule 19N
    • Rule 20
    • Rule 21
    • Rule 22
    • Rule 23
    • Rule 24
    • Rule 24A
    • Rule 24B
    • Rule 24C
    • Rule 25
    • Rule 26
    • Rule 27
    • Rule 28
    • Rule 28A
    • Rule 29
    • Rule 30
    • Rule 31
    • Rule 32
    • Rule 33
    • Rule 34
    • Rule 35
    • Rule 36
    • Rule 37
    • Rule 55
    • Rule 55A
    • Rule 56
    • Rule 57
    • Rule 58
    • Rule 59
    • Rule 60
    • Rule 61
    • Rule 62
    • Rule 63
    • Rule 63A
    • Rule 66
    • Rule 67
    • Rule 68
    • Rule 69
    • Rule 70
    • Rule 71
    • Rule 72
    • Rule 74
    • Rule 74A
    • Rule 75
    • Rule 76
    • Rule 77
    • Rule 78
    • Rule 79
    • Rule 80
    • Rule 81
    • Rule 82
    • Rule 83
    • Rule 84
    • Rule 85
    • Rule 86
    • Rule 87
    • Rule 88
    • Rule 90
    • Rule 91
    • Rule 92
    • Rule 93
    • Rule 94
    • Rule 95
    • Rule 96
    • Rule 97
    • Rule 98
    • Rule 99
    • Rule 100
    • Rule 101
    • Rule 102
    • Rule 103
    • Rule 103A
    • Rule 104
    • Rule 105
    • Rule 106
    • Rule 107
    • Rule 108
    • Rule 109
    • Rule 110
    • Rule 111
    • Rule 111A
    • Rule 112
    • Rule 113
    • Rule 114
    • Rule 115
    • Rule 116
    • Rule 117
    • Rule 118
    • Rule 119
    • Rule 120
    • Rule 121
    • Rule 121A
    • Rule 122
    • Rule 123
    • Rule 124
    • Rule 125
    • Rule 126
    • Rule 127
    • Rule 128
    • Rule 129
    • Rule 129A
    • Rule 130
    • Rule 131
    • Rule 132
    • Rule 133
    • Rule 134
    • Rule 135
    • Rule 136
    • Rule 137
    • Rule 138
    • Rule 139
  • The Design Act 2000
    • Section 1
    • Section 2
    • Section 3
    • Section 4
    • Section 5
    • Section 6
    • Section 7
    • Section 8
    • Section 9
    • Section 10
    • Section 11
    • Section 12
    • Section 13
    • Section 14
    • Section 15
    • Section 16
    • Section 17
    • Section 18
    • Section 19
    • Section 20
    • Section 21
    • Section 22
    • Section 23
    • Section 24
    • Section 25
    • Section 26
    • Section 27
    • Section 28
    • Section 29
    • Section 30
    • Section 31
    • Section 32
    • Section 33
    • Section 34
    • Section 35
    • Section 36
    • Section 37
    • Section 38
    • Section 39
    • Section 40
    • Section 41
    • Section 42
    • Section 43
    • Section 44
    • Section 45
    • Section 46
    • Section 47
    • Section 48
  • The Copyright Act 1957
    • Section 1
    • Section 2
    • Section 3
    • Section 4
    • Section 5
    • Section 6
    • Section 7
    • Section 8
    • Section 9
    • Section 10
    • Section 13
    • Section 14
    • Section 15
    • Section 16
    • Section 17
    • Section 18
    • Section 19
    • Section 19A
    • Section 20
    • Section 21
    • Section 22
    • Section 23
    • Section 24
    • Section 26
    • Section 27
    • Section 28
    • Section 28A
    • Section 29
    • Section 30
    • Section 30A
    • Section 31
    • Section 31A
    • Section 31B
    • Section 31C
    • Section 31D
    • Section 32
    • Section 32A
    • Section 32B
    • Section 33
    • Section 33A
    • Section 34
    • Section 35
    • Section 36
    • Section 36A
    • Section 37
    • Section 38
    • Section 38A
    • Section 38B
    • Section 39
    • Section 39A
    • Section 40
    • Section 40A
    • Section 41
    • Section 42
    • Section 42A
    • Section 43
    • Section 44
    • Section 45
    • Section 46
    • Section 47
    • Section 48
    • Section 49
    • Section 50
    • Section 50A
    • Section 51
    • Section 52
    • Section 52A
    • Section 53
    • Section 53A
    • Section 54
    • Section 55
    • Section 56
    • Section 57
    • Section 58
    • Section 59
    • Section 60
    • Section 61
    • Section 62
    • Section 63
    • Section 63A
    • Section 63B
    • Section 64
    • Section 65
    • Section 65A
    • Section 65B
    • Section 66
    • Section 67
    • Section 68
    • Section 68A
    • Section 69
    • Section 70
    • Section 71
    • Section 72
    • Section 73
    • Section 74
    • Section 75
    • Section 76
    • Section 77
    • Section 78
    • Section 79
  • The Trademark Act 1999
    • Section 1
    • Section 2
    • Section 3
    • Section 4
    • Section 5
    • Section 6
    • Section 7
    • Section 8
    • Section 9
    • Section 10
    • Section 11
    • Section 12
    • Section 13
    • Section 14
    • Section 15
    • Section 16
    • Section 17
    • Section 18
    • Section 19
    • Section 20
    • Section 21
    • Section 22
    • Section 23
    • Section 24
    • Section 25
    • Section 26
    • Section 27
    • Section 28
    • Section 29
    • Section 30
    • Section 31
    • Section 32
    • Section 33
    • Section 34
    • Section 35
    • Section 36
    • Section 36A
    • Section 36B
    • Section 36C
    • Section 36D
    • Section 36E
    • Section 36F
    • Section 36G
    • Section 37
    • Section 38
    • Section 39
    • Section 40
    • Section 41
    • Section 42
    • Section 43
    • Section 44
    • Section 45
    • Section 46
    • Section 47
    • Section 48
    • Section 49
    • Section 50
    • Section 51
    • Section 52
    • Section 53
    • Section 54
    • Section 55
    • Section 56
    • Section 57
    • Section 58
    • Section 59
    • Section 60
    • Section 61
    • Section 62
    • Section 63
    • Section 64
    • Section 65
    • Section 66
    • Section 67
    • Section 68
    • Section 69
    • Section 70
    • Section 71
    • Section 72
    • Section 73
    • Section 74
    • Section 75
    • Section 76
    • Section 77
    • Section 78
    • Section 91
    • Section 94
    • Section 97
    • Section 98
    • Section 101
    • Section 102
    • Section 103
    • Section 104
    • Section 105
    • Section 106
    • Section 107
    • Section 108
    • Section 109
    • Section 110
    • Section 111
    • Section 112
    • Section 113
    • Section 114
    • Section 115
    • Section 116
    • Section 117
    • Section 118
    • Section 119
    • Section 120
    • Section 121
    • Section 122
    • Section 123
    • Section 124
    • Section 125
    • Section 126
    • Section 127
    • Section 128
    • Section 129
    • Section 130
    • Section 131
    • Section 132
    • Section 133
    • Section 134
    • Section 135
    • Section 136
    • Section 137
    • Section 138
    • Section 139
    • Section 140
    • Section 141
    • Section 142
    • Section 143
    • Section 144
    • Section 145
    • Section 146
    • Section 147
    • Section 148
    • Section 149
    • Section 150
    • Section 151
    • Section 152
    • Section 153
    • Section 154
    • Section 155
    • Section 156
    • Section 157
    • Section 158
    • Section 159
  • Patent Case
    • Air Purifier Biomoneta
    • Patentability
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  • Introduction
  • Brief facts
  • Submissions on behalf of the parties
  • Appellant’s submissions:
  • Respondent’s submissions:
  • Hon’ble Court’s Analysis and Decision:
Edit on GitHub
  1. Patent Case

Air Purifier Biomoneta

Inventive step, not just rearrangement.

Introduction

In a detailed order dated March 13, 2023, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (hereinafter referred to as "the Hon'ble Court") in Biomoneta Research pvt ltd. vs Controller general of Patents Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 297/2022] held that “It is a settled position in law that secondary considerations by themselves may not qualify an invention to become patentable but when a set of old results are combined in a new and profitable manner, a patent can be granted”. Importantly, the Hon’ble Court acknowledged and noted the relevancy of EPO Guidelines in respect of combination vs juxtaposition or aggregation as well as the grant of the corresponding US application.

Brief facts

The present patent appeal was instituted by Biomoneta Research (hereinafter the “Appellant”) challenging the impugned order by the Controller general of Patents Designs (hereinafter the “Respondent”) through which the Appellant’s application (201741016833) for an invention titled “Air Decontamination Assembly” was refused by the Indian Patent Office. The subject application was refused on the grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patents Act (hereinafter, referred to as “the Act”).

Submissions on behalf of the parties

Appellant’s submissions:

The Counsel appearing for the Appellant highlighted the fact that the Appellant company has been awarded with several innovation awards in view of the subject patent and claims to be a ‘One Product, One Patent’ company where the subject patent is that one patent.

It was also highlighted that the existing air decontamination system in air purifiers work completely differently from the subject matter of the Appellant’s invention and mentioned several demerits for the same. The Applicant developed a new technology in the view of the conventional air purifiers which has various advantages.

Further, the Appellant highlighted that the corresponding US application was allowed wherein the same prior arts (basis which the application was refused in India) were submitted in the Information disclosure statement (IDS) filed in respect of said US application.

The Appellant focused on the advantages of the invention, namely:

  • Higher decontamination

  • Lower power consumption

  • Compactness of the device

  • Manufacturing at lower cost

  • Easier maintenance

  • The Appellant further claimed that the device disclosed in the invention has a higher commercial potential in the form of cheaper manufacturing costs and greater application.

Respondent’s submissions:

The Respondent argued relying on document D3 that the said document air purification filter for a “Disinfecting Air Filter” works almost on the same principles as the Applicant’s patent application. It was further submitted that the filter disclosed in the prior art document D3 is in fact, an advanced product as compared to the product which is the subject matter of the Appellants’ subject patent application which uses conducting plates which are parallelly installed in order to attract the microbes and pathogens by creation of an electric field.

It was the respondent’s submissions that a combined reading of D1 – D3 would result in a person skilled in the art to arrive at the invention claimed by the Appellant.

Hon’ble Court’s Analysis and Decision:

The Hon’ble Court considered the five step test laid down in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Ors. v. Cipla Ltd., 2016(65) PTC 1 (Del) for determining inventive step and lack of obviousness, namely:

“Step No.1 To identify an ordinary person skilled in the art;

Step No.2 To identify the inventive concept embodied in the patent;

Step No.3 To impute to a normal skilled but unimaginative ordinary person skilled in the art what was common general knowledge in the art at the priority date;

Step No.4 To identify the differences, if any, between the matter cited and the alleged invention and ascertain whether the differences are ordinary application of law or involve various different steps requiring multiple, theoretical and practical applications;

Step No.5 To decide whether those differences, viewed in the knowledge of alleged invention, constituted steps which would have been obvious to the ordinary person skilled in the art and rule out a hindside approach.

After considering all three cited prior arts in detail, the Hon’ble Court observed that “the Controller’s order itself shows that the inventive step in the subject application is being defeated by a combination of elements in the D2 along with some elements of D1 and D3. This would be a Hindsight approach which is not permissible”.

The question that arose in law was “whether the invention claimed in the subject patent application is no more than a workshop improvement or whether it is a mere application of an old contrivance”.

The Hon’ble Court relied on the said principles as laid down by the EPO guideline which deal with combination vs juxtaposition or aggregation:

“9.5 Combination vs. juxtaposition or aggregation

The invention claimed must normally be considered as a whole. When a claim consists of a ‘combination of features’, it is not correct to argue that the separate features of the combination taken by themselves are known or obvious and that ‘therefore’ the whole subject matter claimed is obvious. However, where the claim is merely an ‘aggregation or juxtaposition of features’ and not a true combination, it is enough to show that the individual features are obvious to prove that the aggregation of features does not involve an inventive step. A set of technical features is regarded as a combination of features if the functional interaction between the features achieves a combined technical effect which is different from, e.g. greater than, the sum of the technical effects of the individual features. In other words, the interactions of the individual features must produce a synergistic effect. If no such synergistic effect exists, there is no more than a mere aggregation of features...”

The Hon’ble Court opined that the application is not a mere addition to a well-known combination, but it has some new features and is an improvement in the method which has brought in greater efficiency. If there is a synergistic combination or a working interrelation which produces a new and improved result, the subject matter is patentable.

Further, the Hon’ble Court noted that the application addresses various disadvantages in the prior art, these factors are also, secondary considerations which tilt the Court to hold that the invention is not a result of a mere combination but involves an inventive step. The Court further held that “Air Purifiers have been known in the art for several years but no other air purifier has been shown to the Court which is close to the subject invention’s construction both in terms of physical construction and effectiveness.”

Therefore, the Court opined that “It is a settled position in law that secondary considerations by themselves may not qualify an invention to become patentable but when a set of old results are combined in a new and profitable manner, a patent can be granted. Lack of inventive step requires a person skilled in the art to be able to ‘jump’ from the existing prior art to the subject invention. There is nothing on record to establish that this ‘jump’ could have been achieved on the priority date, especially because even the controller arrives at the finding of lack of inventive step upon a combination of D1, D2 and D3. The differences between the prior arts & the subject invention lead to a finding of inventive step rather than its absence.”

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Court noted that the corresponding US application has been granted by the USPTO after considering in the IDS of the same documents i.e., D1 – D3 and considered that this fact would also add strength to the Appellant’s case that its innovation is not hit by the prior to art documents i.e., D1, D2 & D3.

In this context, the appeal was decided in favor of the appellant. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the patent was directed to proceed for grant.

Source: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e772d131-058c-40f3-bfc4-5f2e384ea22e

PreviousPatent CaseNextPatentability

Last updated 11 months ago