{"id":22737,"date":"2026-04-25T11:18:54","date_gmt":"2026-04-25T11:18:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=22737"},"modified":"2026-04-25T11:21:23","modified_gmt":"2026-04-25T11:21:23","slug":"delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Failure in following procedures for assessing inventive step in a case of Remand of a patent controller order"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>In a notable decision emphasizing fair and reasoned decision-making in patent matters, the Delhi High Court set aside an order revoking a patent for a sustainable process to make hard carbon electrode material from cattle manure. The court did not decide whether the invention deserved a patent but sent the case back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration. It held that the Deputy Controller failed to properly apply the established legal test for checking if an invention involves an \u201cinventive step\u201d (something non-obvious to a skilled person).<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Key_Benefits_of_the_Invention\" >Key Benefits of the Invention<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Process_Description_Claim_1\" >Process Description (Claim 1)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Dependent_Claims\" >Dependent Claims<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Prior_Art_Documents_Relied_Upon\" >Prior Art Documents Relied Upon<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Appeal_Before_Delhi_High_Court\" >Appeal Before Delhi High Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Reasoning\" >Reasoning<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Inventive_Step_Analysis_And_Legal_Flaws\" >Inventive Step Analysis And Legal Flaws<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Key_Differences_Highlighted_In_The_Patent\" >Key Differences Highlighted In The Patent<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Combination_Of_Prior_Art_Analysis\" >Combination Of Prior Art Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Insufficient_Disclosure_Under_Section_252g\" >Insufficient Disclosure Under Section 25(2)(g)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Courts_Overall_Conclusion\" >Court\u2019s Overall Conclusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Key_Judgments_Discussed_With_Citations_And_Context\" >Key Judgments Discussed With Citations And Context<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Legal_Principles_Emphasized_By_The_Court\" >Legal Principles Emphasized By The Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Final_Decision_Of_The_Court\" >Final Decision Of The Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Point_Of_Law_Settled_In_The_Case\" >Point Of Law Settled In The Case<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Inventive_Step_Obviousness_Test\" >Inventive Step (Obviousness Test)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Sufficiency_Of_Disclosure\" >Sufficiency Of Disclosure<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Additional_Evidence_In_Appeals\" >Additional Evidence In Appeals<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Requirement_Of_Reasoned_Decisions\" >Requirement Of Reasoned Decisions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Impact_On_Innovation\" >Impact On Innovation<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-patent-revocation-inventive-step-green-tech-2026\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>The ruling highlights how Indian courts expect patent authorities to carefully evaluate prior art documents, identify the skilled worker in the field, and avoid deciding with the benefit of hindsight. It also allowed additional experimental data to be considered, stressing that justice requires looking at all relevant evidence. Delivered on 12 March 2026 by Justice Jyoti Singh, the judgment protects innovators working on green technologies while reminding authorities to follow due process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"factual-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Indigenous Energy Storage Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, is a company focused on sustainable energy storage, especially sodium-ion battery technology. It developed a process to turn cattle manure and other bio-waste into hard carbon, a key material used as an electrode in sodium-ion batteries and supercapacitors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-benefits-of-invention\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Benefits_of_the_Invention\"><\/span>Key Benefits of the Invention<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Low-cost production method<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Environmentally friendly (repurposing agricultural waste)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Scalable for industrial use<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Delivers good technical performance<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The patent application (leading to Indian Patent No. 373806 or IN\u2019806) was filed on 4 November 2020, examined, and granted on 4 August 2021. The title of the patent is \u201cCattle Manure Derived Hard Carbon as Electrode Material for Sodium Ion Batteries and Super Capacitors.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"process-description\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Process_Description_Claim_1\"><\/span>Process Description (Claim 1)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Drying the manure at 50\u2013100\u00b0C<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Grinding the material<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Treating it with acid solutions (like hydrofluoric acid) under specific conditions<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Washing the treated material<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Vacuum drying<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>High-temperature calcination in a controlled environment<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"dependent-claims\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dependent_Claims\"><\/span>Dependent Claims<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Variations in the type of manure used<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Use in different metal-ion batteries<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Specific composite electrode formulation<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"procedural-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Soon after the grant, a post-grant opposition was filed on 3 August 2021 under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the patent on grounds including lack of novelty, lack of inventive step (Section 25(2)(e)), and insufficient disclosure (Section 25(2)(g)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"prior-art-documents\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Prior_Art_Documents_Relied_Upon\"><\/span>Prior Art Documents Relied Upon<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Document<\/th><th>Description<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>D1<\/td><td>WO publication on processing animal-derived waste for hard carbon<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>D2<\/td><td>Textbook on physical chemistry showing water phase diagrams<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>D3<\/td><td>US patent on electrode materials for sodium-ion batteries<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>The Patent Office heard the parties and, on 18 October 2024, revoked the patent. It rejected the novelty objection but upheld lack of inventive step (finding the process obvious over D1, combined with D2 and D3) and insufficient disclosure (citing lack of experimental data on yield, purity, and scalability).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"appeal-before-delhi-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appeal_Before_Delhi_High_Court\"><\/span>Appeal Before Delhi High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The patentee filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act before the Delhi High Court. During the appeal, it also moved an application to place additional evidence on record, including:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>An expert opinion distinguishing the invention from prior art<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Data showing superior yield<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A letter about the revocation order<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The High Court allowed this additional evidence, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148, as it would help in just adjudication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reasoning\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning\"><\/span>Reasoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The High Court examined whether the Controller\u2019s revocation order was legally sound. It found serious procedural and substantive flaws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"inventive-step-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Inventive_Step_Analysis_And_Legal_Flaws\"><\/span>Inventive Step Analysis And Legal Flaws<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>First, the court stressed that deciding inventive step is not a simple comparison of documents. Indian law requires following a structured five-step test laid down by the Delhi High Court in the F. Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla case. The Controller failed to identify the \u201cperson skilled in the art\u201d (a skilled but unimaginative worker in battery materials or biomass processing), did not clearly define the inventive concept of the patent, and did not properly analyse differences between the claimed process and prior art without using hindsight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-differences-in-patent\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Differences_Highlighted_In_The_Patent\"><\/span>Key Differences Highlighted In The Patent<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The court noted that the appellant had highlighted key differences:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The patent skips the expensive \u201ccharring\u201d step mandatory in D1<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Uses hydrofluoric acid (HF) at lower temperatures (25\u201360\u00b0C) instead of HCl at higher temperatures<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Avoids certain pre-treatments like \u201csink and float\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Employs specific vacuum drying conditions<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>These steps allegedly lead to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Better purity<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Higher yield<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A material better suited for sodium-ion batteries<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The controller dismissed many points by saying the patentee did not prove \u201ctechnical advantage\u201d or provide enough experimental data, but the court found this approach flawed and hindsight-driven.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"prior-art-combination-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Combination_Of_Prior_Art_Analysis\"><\/span>Combination Of Prior Art Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>On the combination of prior arts, the court observed that D2 (a general chemistry textbook on water phases) and D3 (electrode formulations) appeared non-analogous to the biomass-to-hard-carbon process in D1. Mosaic combinations (piecing unrelated documents together) are not freely allowed unless the prior art itself suggests the combination with a reasonable expectation of success.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"insufficient-disclosure\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Insufficient_Disclosure_Under_Section_252g\"><\/span>Insufficient Disclosure Under Section 25(2)(g)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Regarding insufficient disclosure under Section 25(2)(g), the court held that the specification sufficiently described at least one way to work the invention, which is generally enough. Doubts about industrial scalability based on laboratory yields should not lead to revocation without giving the patentee a proper chance to submit supporting data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The court verified that the Controller\u2019s claim of providing opportunities for data was not fully supported by records. It therefore allowed the additional experimental data filed in the appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"court-conclusion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Courts_Overall_Conclusion\"><\/span>Court\u2019s Overall Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Overall, the High Court found the impugned order lacked proper reasoning and failed to follow mandatory legal procedures for assessing inventive step and sufficiency. It emphasised that patent decisions must be speaking orders that address all key arguments raised by the parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-judgments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Judgments_Discussed_With_Citations_And_Context\"><\/span>Key Judgments Discussed With Citations And Context<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The court relied on several important precedents to guide its analysis, explaining them in a way that shows how they apply to everyday patent examination:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Case Name<\/th><th>Citation<\/th><th>Key Principle<\/th><th>Relevance In Present Case<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. &amp; Anr. v. Cipla Ltd.<\/td><td>2015 SCC OnLine Del 13619<\/td><td>Laid down a five-step test for inventive step\/obviousness under Section 2(1)(ja)<\/td><td>The controller failed to follow structured test, making decision legally flawed<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Tapas Chatterjee v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs and Another<\/td><td>2025 SCC OnLine Del 6369<\/td><td>Reaffirmed that Hoffmann-La Roche test must be followed sequentially<\/td><td>Failure to identify skilled person alone justified setting aside the order.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Agriboard International LLC v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs<\/td><td>2022 SCC OnLine Del 940<\/td><td>Requires detailed reasoning in patent rejection orders<\/td><td>Used to criticize superficial reasoning in impugned order<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Another<\/td><td>(2012) 8 SCC 148<\/td><td>Allows additional evidence in appeal for just adjudication<\/td><td>Supported admission of expert opinion and yield data<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"legal-principles-emphasized\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Principles_Emphasized_By_The_Court\"><\/span>Legal Principles Emphasized By The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Follow structured legal tests for inventive step<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Avoid hindsight bias in patent analysis<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Provide detailed, reasoned (\u201cspeaking\u201d) orders<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Consider all relevant evidence before revocation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ensure procedural fairness in patent examination<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"final-decision-of-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_Of_The_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision Of The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the revocation order dated 18 October 2024. It remanded the post-grant opposition back to the deputy controller for fresh consideration. The Controller must now examine the matter afresh, taking into account the additional documents allowed by the High Court, all issues raised by the appellant in its reply and written submissions, and the arguments in the appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Both parties must be heard, and a decision should be taken within four months. The court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the patent\u2019s validity, leaving that entirely to the Patent Office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"points-of-law-settled\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_Of_Law_Settled_In_The_Case\"><\/span>Point Of Law Settled In The Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>This judgement reinforces simple but important principles for anyone dealing with patents in India:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"inventive-step-obviousness-test\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Inventive_Step_Obviousness_Test\"><\/span>Inventive Step (Obviousness Test)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>When checking if an invention is obvious (lacks inventive step), the Patent Office must follow a clear, step-by-step process:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Identify who the skilled worker is<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Determine what the new idea really is<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Assess what everyone in the field already knew<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Identify what is different from old inventions<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Evaluate whether those differences would have been obvious without hindsight<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Skipping these steps or using hindsight makes the decision invalid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"sufficiency-of-disclosure\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Sufficiency_Of_Disclosure\"><\/span>Sufficiency Of Disclosure<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Additionally, when sufficiency of disclosure is challenged, the specification needs only to describe at least one clear way for a skilled person to carry out the invention \u2014 not prove every possible use with extensive data upfront.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>At least one workable method must be disclosed<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Extensive experimental data is not mandatory at filing stage<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Authorities should allow submission of additional data if required later<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>If more data becomes relevant later, authorities should give the patentee a fair opportunity to submit it rather than revoking the patent outright.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"additional-evidence-in-appeals\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Additional_Evidence_In_Appeals\"><\/span>Additional Evidence In Appeals<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Finally, courts can allow additional evidence in appeals if it helps reach a just decision, especially in technical fields like green energy where experimental proof of advantages matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Courts have discretion to admit additional evidence<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Particularly important in technical and scientific matters<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Helps ensure fair and just adjudication<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"requirement-of-reasoned-decisions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Requirement_Of_Reasoned_Decisions\"><\/span>Requirement Of Reasoned Decisions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Patent decisions must be detailed and address all key arguments raised by the parties; vague or incomplete reasoning will not stand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Requirement<\/th><th>Explanation<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Detailed Reasoning<\/td><td>All arguments must be properly addressed<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>No Vague Orders<\/td><td>Unclear reasoning can invalidate decisions<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Consideration Of Evidence<\/td><td>All relevant materials must be evaluated<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"impact-on-innovation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Impact_On_Innovation\"><\/span>Impact On Innovation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The ruling encourages innovation in sustainable technologies by ensuring patent challenges are handled with proper legal rigour and fairness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Particulars<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Case Title<\/td><td>Indigenous Energy Storage Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs &amp; Anr.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Date Of Order<\/td><td>12 March 2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Case Number<\/td><td>C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 3\/2025<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Name Of Court<\/td><td>High Court of Delhi<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Name Of Honourable Judge<\/td><td>Justice Jyoti Singh<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Disclaimer:<\/strong> Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/strong>, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction In a notable decision emphasizing fair and reasoned decision-making in patent matters, the Delhi High Court set aside an order revoking a patent for a sustainable process to make hard carbon electrode material from cattle manure. The court did not decide whether the invention deserved a patent but sent the case back to the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":22736,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[5873],"tags":[28,5969],"class_list":{"0":"post-22737","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-trademark-law","8":"tag-top-news","9":"tag-trademark-laws"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Capture-2.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22737","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22737"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22737\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22785,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22737\/revisions\/22785"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22736"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22737"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22737"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22737"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}